LORD MEADOWBANK entirely concurred in the views of Lord Pitmilly. The nature of this case and the impression it had produced upon the public were such, that it required the most careful and anxious consideration; but he was confident that the more thoroughly their Lordships were convinced of the existing state of excitement in the public mind concerning it, the greater would be their anxiety that the prisoners suffered no prejudice on their trial or in their defence. The question here was one of very great and general importance. But if it had been entertained on the question of competency, it would have shaken the whole system of our criminal procedure. Our practice of accumulating a number of charges in the same indictment had been steady and uniform. With respect to the earlier cases referred to, particularly that in 1696, he must say that he could not for his soul comprehend upon what grounds the counsel for the prisoner had attempted to invalidate their authority. The particular case referred to occurred _after_ the Revolution, when the Judges were as great and eminent lawyers as ever sat in that Court. But in order to show the uniformity of the practice, he needed not go farther back than the case of Murdiston and Miller, where several acts, committed by different individuals in different counties, were put into the same indictment; yet not one iota of an objection was urged against the proceeding similar to what they had heard to-day. Our own practice, in cases of forgery, which was a capital crime, left no doubt upon the matter. Several acts of this description of crime were constantly charged in the same indictment.--In cases of robbery, it was not competent to libel aggravation. The Prosecutor was not admitted to libel habit and repute. That was now settled law. It had not been so formerly; and accordingly, when he had the honour to fill the same situation, which his learned friend (the Lord Advocate) now held, he had directed an indictment to be raised to try the point,--and the law was now settled. But it was competent to accumulate several acts in the same indictment, and to have it tried by the same evidence and before the same Jury. It was competent where there was several acts of robbery charged against different individuals; and there was one case of a father and a daughter, where the daughter was charged with two acts, and the father with all the three libelled. He was therefore of opinion that the Lord Advocate had done right in proceeding as he did. But the Court had a discretion; and to that discretion the prisoners had appealed. But having stated his opinion of that discretion, he deemed it right to say, that the Court was not answerable for the consequences. The prisoners had exercised _their_ discretion, and he warned them to consider well the step they had taken. As to the Court they were bound to sit there and try the cases one after another.