may lose life, which all the wealth and power of all the states in the world cannot restore to him.  Undoubtedly the state ought not to be weighed against justice; but it would be dreadful indeed, if causes of such importance should be sacrificed to petty regulations, of mere secondary convenience, not at all adapted to such concerns, nor even made with a view to their existence.  Your Committee readily adopts the opinion of the learned Ryder, that it would be better, if there were no such rules, than that there should be no exceptions to them.  Lord Hardwicke declared very properly, in the case of the Earl of Chesterfield against Sir Abraham Janssen, “that political arguments, in the fullest sense of the word, as they concerned the government of a nation, must be, and always have been, of great weight in the consideration of this court.  Though there be no dolus malus in contracts, with regard to other persons, yet, if the rest of mankind are concerned as well as the parties, it may be properly said, it regards the public utility."[76] Lord Hardwicke laid this down in a cause of meum et tuum, between party and party, where the public was concerned only remotely and in the example,—­not, as in this prosecution, when the political 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.