oppression in the preparation of the trial; observe the situation in which the pannels were placed. Three murders were charged, with a list of fifty-five witnesses; besides seven declarations, five by the one, and two by the other. One set, it might be said, was against one prisoner, and the other against the other; but it was impossible so to separate, or to analyse the evidence as not to admit against the one evidence which was calculated to affect the other; and by thus mixing up and massing together the whole into an unnecessary accumulation of crime, to come to the same conclusion in regard to both. Look to the case of Helen M‘Dougal, and it will be seen the prejudice must operate still more strongly against her. She is accused of only one crime, and it is not said that she had any connection with the others. But this charge of murder, committed in the latter end of October, is brought to trial, combined with two others committed, one in April, six months previously, and the other in the beginning of October. Where is this to stop? If the Prosecutor is allowed to proceed in this way, may he not on the same principle combine ten murders against ten prisoners, accused of ten different offences, committed in as many different counties? He submitted that there must be some limitation; and the question was, whether the Court could sustain the present charge by which one individual, accused of one offence, is mixed up with another, accused of two, with which she is not alleged to have had any concern. Imagine this case. At the end of the indictment, eight articles were specified against Burke, and six more against Burke and M‘Dougal conjointly. Take the first--the skirt of a gown--and suppose it proved against Burke alone. It could not be adduced as evidence against Helen M‘Dougal. But suppose it was traced into her possession, and that a witness was called to prove that it belonged to Mary Paterson or Mitchell. This would be conclusive as to M‘Dougal’s connection with Burke. But it might be said that the Judge would tell the Jury to strike this out of their notes. That was an easy operation; but could they strike it out of their minds as easily as out of their notes? Then in what circumstances would Helen M‘Dougal be placed? An article not libelled against her would be checkmate to her defence. She would be taken by surprise,--she would be thrown off her guard; and although the gown had come fairly and honestly into her possession she could produce no evidence to instruct the fact. He put this as an illustration. So far as the female prisoner was concerned it would be fatal.