AND THE LORD SAID UNTO— 47
How, then, was this matter understood soon after the passing of the 21st Geo. III. (c.70)? Out of the transactions which took place between the year 1773 and the year 1781, various accusations arose against the individuals occupying certain high stations, and among others, there was a charge against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Sir Elijah Impey, who made his defence in the House of Commons, in a speech which was afterwards printed in the shape of a separate publication, and is correctly copied in the 26th Volume of the Parliamentary History (1341-1416). “The charter,” says Sir Elijah Impey, at page 1358 of that work, “has given a criminal jurisdiction, not local and territorial, over the Provinces, but personal, over pan of the inhabitants, answering to certain descriptions; but the jurisdiction given over the inhabitants of Calcutta is universal, that being a territorial jurisdiction throughout the whole town of Calcutta.” The object of the learned Judge upon this occasion was different from that which is now the subject of consideration; for it became important for him to show that the jurisdiction in Calcutta was a general jurisdiction, and that the jurisdiction in the Provinces was not a general jurisdiction. “The first, as to the Provinces at large, is new, and was introduced by that charter. All the laws of England established by that charter I admit to be new, as to them, and only to be supported by the authority of that charter; but with regard to the town of Calcutta, the operation of the statute was different. Long before the erection of the Supreme Court in 1774, there had existed in Calcutta courts in the nature of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery, administering the criminal laws of England with a territorial jurisdiction over Calcutta. The 13th Geo. III. (c. 63) abolished these courts to make room for the Supreme Court. It gave to the Supreme Court the power of trying the same crimes, with a territorial jurisdiction co-extensive with that of the old court.”
It has been intimated that the jurisdiction now contended for has been enforced at Madras. Such a jurisdiction is at variance with the doctrine stated by Sir Thomas Strange, Chief Justice of Madras in the year 1802, in the first Volume of his Reports (Notes of Cases at Madras), page 135, Nagapah Chitty v. Rachummah and another. He there says, “It has been truly observed, that it is impossible to argue in this court from any analogous cases of jurisdiction in the courts at home. Those courts being by their constitution, according