the strength of these consecutive authorities, all of which went to support the principle for which he contended, his Lordship submitted that the objection ought to be repelled. The DEAN OF FACULTY, in reply to the Lord Advocate, argued powerfully in support of the views which had been opened by Mr. Robertson. His Right Honourable and Learned Friend (the Lord Advocate) might rely upon it that, on the part of the prisoner’s Counsel, no doubt whatever was entertained of the perfect propriety of the motive by which his Lordship had been actuated in framing the present indictment; they were convinced that he had prepared and brought forward the case in the manner which he conceived least likely to prejudice the prisoners or to distract them in their defence. But, on the other hand, he could with equal truth and sincerity assure his Lordship, that the objection now raised had been taken from a firm conviction that the sustaining of it was necessary for the safety of the law, and indispensable to the ends of justice. It had been said that the decisions of the Court ought to be adhered to, that its practice ought not to be infringed upon; and yet it was admitted that the present was the first case which had ever occurred of three separate acts of murder being combined in the same indictment. In this situation, then, were they not justified in submitting to the Court the objection which had been taken upon the ground of this unprecedented combination? The Learned Lord had intimated an intention to desert the diet _pro loco et tempore_ against the pannel M‘Dougal. But the question still remained whether the interests of the male prisoner would not be dreadfully prejudiced in his defence, if put upon his trial for three separate acts of murder, committed at different times, and in different places. Now he contended that the present form of the indictment was adopted to effect an illegitimate object: it was calculated to lead to great injustice to the prisoner. What the Prosecutor insisted on passing to a Jury was an indictment charging three distinct murders: he averred that there were separate and unconnected acts of this crime; and he assumed that there was sufficient proof to bring them home to the prisoner. But every man, whatever the number of charges against him might be, was to be held and presumed to be innocent till the contrary was proved, and a conviction obtained against himself. There might, or there might not be sufficient proof to convict him; but he contended for the benefit of the ordinary presumption. “Give us,” said the Learned Counsel, “the benefit of this presumption, to which we are entitled, and then let us see how the case will stand.” In the indictment before their Lordships three murders were charged; murders committed at different times; murders of different persons, totally unconnected and living in different places; and the last of these was stated to have been done in