The DEAN OF FACULTY--My Lords, what may be the consequence to the prisoners at the bar of your Lordships repelling the present objection I do not know. The gentlemen on the other side of the table have taken care to lay their indictment in such a manner as to leave the counsel for the prisoners altogether in the dark as to the nature of the proof they mean to lead and the manner in which these articles are to be used in evidence; but, my Lords, sure I am of this, that the decision of the present question is of the greatest importance to the law of this country. I am not surprised that the Solicitor-General should say that he will make no answer to the objection, because I am convinced that it admits of none. It is no light matter the framing of an indictment; the specification of the proofs by which it is to be supported is of the utmost consequence. I am persuaded, my Lords, that I would have no difficulty to satisfy your Lordships, from the nature of the thing itself, that this objection is well founded. But I resort to better evidence. I appeal to the Books of Adjournal on your Lordships’ table, and I call upon the counsel for the Crown to point out one single instance recorded in them where articles have been founded on in an indictment and produced in evidence without being specially described. Having so respectable an authority as the uniform practice of your Lordships and your predecessors to support the objection now stated, you will think well before you introduce an innovation that may be attended with the most dangerous consequences. We are told that some of the articles in question are of no consequence; if so, why are they here? I will not enter into the question whether the trunk was really produced in the Justiciary Office in proper time or not, as all the indictment says is, that “it will be produced.” My Lords, there are two kinds of articles produced in criminal trials, first the _corpora delicti_, to prove that the crime was actually committed; and, secondly, articles from which the leading circumstances are to be inferred. The Lord Advocate admits that the first of these must be particularly described, but denies the necessity of describing the second. This is a distinction not known in the law of this country, and directly contrary to the established forms of criminal procedure. What would be the consequence were it recognised? Suppose, for instance, that a person breaks into a house and leaves his hat behind him; nothing could establish his guilt more clearly than to prove that this hat was his. But although this is only a leading circumstance, would it be enough to say that a hat was to be produced in evidence, without specifying where it was found, or any circumstances attending it, so as to give the accused an opportunity of proving that it belonged to another, and not to him?