"So much, gentlemen of the jury, for the first part of the charge: for the general and vague insinuation, made for the purpose of preparing your minds to regard the prisoner as a man of blood. But it seemed necessary to my learned friend; and most necessary indeed it was to his case, to show some apparent motive for the crime of which the prisoner is accused; and a letter has been read in evidence to prove that there was some dispute between the prisoner and the murdered man. That letter shall be fully explained before I have done; and you shall see how ridiculously petty is the motive assigned for so great an offence. But besides that letter, allusion was made to former disputes between the unfortunate Mr. Roberts and the prisoner, which, though not proved, may have had some influence upon your minds. I will show that no such disputes ever existed; that the two were on the best and most kindly terms, that they had been so through life; and that those causes of disgust which had induced the prisoner to quit his brother's mansion were identical with the causes which induced Mr. Roberts to give notice to Sir William Winslow that he was about to leave his employment. In short, I will prove that Mr. Winslow and the man he is accused of murdering, were acting on the most friendly terms together; and that the letter which is supposed to prove that a dispute existed, was written in cold terms merely as an authority to Mr. Roberts for disregarding any orders he might have received from his employer to meddle with things in which that employer had no right. It was, in short, a formal notice to him to respect the rights of the prisoner, without any regard to the illegal directions of a third party. I shall be able to prove that Mr. Roberts possessed the full confidence of Mr. Chandos Winslow; that he was acting with due regard for Mr. Winslow's interests, and that he had actually applied or intended to apply to that gentleman for an authority or warning to respect, in his capacity of agent for Sir William Winslow, the rights of him, the prisoner at the bar. Thus the pretence of motive furnished by the letter which he, Mr. Roberts, had himself desired, falls entirely to the ground, and leaves the accusation totally without foundation, except such as a very doubtful train of circumstantial evidence can afford. Mr. Roberts, in fact, was the only confidant of the prisoner at the bar, the only person to whom he confided his address, when disgust at some injuries he imagined he had received, and a desire to mingle as an equal with classes in which he had long taken a deep interest as a superior, led him to quit his high position in society, and accept the humble station of gardener to Mr. Arthur Tracy, of Northferry. Was this, gentlemen of the jury, like long disputes and acrimonious bickerings, ending in malevolence and murder? Is that the man to entertain such passions?--to commit such an act?