ong and impressive speech, in which he professed to describe the career
of the accused from his first arrival at Calcutta, down to his recall
by a resolution of the house of commons. The articles which he produced
related to the trial and execution of Nuncomar; to the conduct of Impey
in a cause called the Patna cause; to an extension of jurisdiction,
illegally and oppressively, beyond the intention of the act and charter;
to the Cossijurah cause, in which this extension of jurisdiction had
been carried out with great violence; to the acceptance of the office of
judge of the Sudder Dewannee Adaulut, which was affirmed to be contrary
to law, repugnant to the spirit and act of the charter, and subversive
of all its material purposes; and to the affairs in Oude and Benares,
where it was declared the chief-justice became the agent and tool of
Hastings. At the suggestion of Pitt, these charges were ordered to be
printed, and then referred to a committee of the whole house; which
committee was to take them into consideration on the 4th of February.
When that day arrived, a petition was presented from Sir Elijah Impey,
praying to be heard in answer to the charges, before the house proceeded
any further; and the prayer being granted, he was called to the bar
for that purpose. His defence was very long and conducted with great
ability, embracing every point on which he was charged. It produced a
deep and lasting impression on the house, and Pitt was heard to declare
that had he been placed in the same situation, he could not say but that
he should have acted precisely as the accused had done. It was evident
that the prosecution would soon be dropped, and it was rendered still
more clear by the evidence taken at the bar of the house. This evidence
was all taken by the 28th of April, on which clay Sir Gilbert Elliot
began his reply to the defence, which was not finished before the 9th of
May. Sir Gilbert moved, in conclusion, a resolution importing that the
first charge had been made good, which was supported by Fox, Burke,
and Colonel Fuliarton, and controverted by Sir Richard Sutton, Mr. D.
Pulteney, the attorney and solicitor-general, and the chancellor of
the exchequer. Upon a division, the motion was lost by a majority
of seventy-three against fifty-five; and on the 27th of May, the day
appointed for the committee to sit again, upon the usual motion that the
speaker do now leave the chair, it was opposed by the attorney-general,