itical arguments are infinitely
stronger, the crime relating, and in the most eminent degree relating,
to the public.

One case has happened since the time which is limited by the order of
the House for this Report: it is so very important, that we think
ourselves justified in submitting it to the House without delay. Your
Committee, on the supposed rules here alluded to, has been prevented (as
of right) from examining a witness of importance in the case, and one on
whose supposed knowledge of his most hidden transactions the prisoner
had himself, in all stages of this business, as the House well knows,
endeavored to raise presumptions in favor of his cause. Indeed, it was
his principal, if not only justification, as to the _intention_, in many
different acts of corruption charged upon him. The witness to whom we
allude is Mr. Larkins. This witness came from India after your Committee
had closed the evidence of this House in chief, and could not be
produced before the time of the reply. Your Committee was not suffered
to examine him,--not, as they could find, on objections to the
particular question as improper, but upon some or other of the general
grounds (as they believe) on which Mr. Hastings resisted any evidence
from him. The party, after having resisted his production, on the next
sitting day admitted him, and by consent he was examined. Your
Committee entered a protest on the minutes in favor of their right. Your
Committee contended, and do contend, that, by the Law of Parliament,
whilst the trial lasts, they have full right to call new evidence, as
the circumstances may afford and the posture of the cause may demand it.

This right seems to have been asserted by the Managers for the Commons
in the case of Lord Stafford, 32 Charles II.[77] The Managers in that
case claimed it as the right of the Commons to produce witnesses for the
purpose of fortifying their former evidence. Their claim was admitted by
the court. It is an adjudged case in the Law of Parliament. Your
Committee is well aware that the notorious perjury and infamy of the
witnesses in the trial of Lord Stafford has been used to throw a shade
of doubt and suspicion on all that was transacted on that occasion. But
there is no force in such an objection. Your Committee has no concern in
the defence of these witnesses, nor of the Lords who found their verdict
on such testimony, nor of the morality of those who produced it. Much
may be said to palliate