"Now I come to the second head of evidence--the traces of the murderer's progress. The hoe has been admitted to be the prisoner's by himself in this court. More may be very safely admitted; namely, that he carried it out with him in his hand, that he had it out with him when he met the witness, Sandes, and that he rested it against one of the pillars while he spoke with Miss Tracy, leaving it there when he went away. What more natural than to suppose, that the murderer, seeing it there, snatched it up to effect his criminal design? The footmarks in the grass, I not only deny to have been the prisoner's, but I must say, that it is very nearly proved they were not. It is sworn that there were but two lines, one coming and one going, between the haw-haw and the spot; and it is admitted by the witness Taylor, that one of the men who accompanied Mr. Tracy at night went from the place where the body was found to the haw-haw and back. It is also shown that the ground was so soft as to receive the impression of any foot that trod upon it. These steps then could not have been the prisoner's; but servants, and constable, and all, seem to have made up their mind that the prisoner was the murderer, and the shoes of no other person were examined. Now, gentlemen of the jury, I will touch upon the third head of evidence--the prisoner's appearance and demeanour after the murder. He returned to his cottage, it is shown, somewhat after six o'clock, and I shall not in the slightest degree attempt, as I told you I would not, to lessen the weight of this evidence, nor even to explain the facts. I am precluded by his most positive injunctions from doing so. I admit then that he returned in a state of very considerable agitation; that he was annoyed, harassed, vexed; that there was blood upon his hands and upon his coat, and I will give no explanation of these facts. He forbids me to give the true one; and I will give no other. Were there no means of establishing his innocence, this refusal of explanation might create a reasonable doubt in your minds; but that doubt would be far from justifying you in a verdict of guilty. Any one can conceive a thousand circumstances which might have produced that agitation, and which might have covered his hands and stained his coat with blood, but which the most honourable motives would prevent him from explaining. The proof must always lie with the other side; the prosecutor is bound to leave no reasonable doubt in your minds. It is not enough to produce a doubt of the prisoner's innocence; and therefore it is I say that though if no means existed of proving the prisoner to be not guilty, this refusal of explanation might produce a suspicion that he was guilty, yet that suspicion would be by no means sufficient to justify a verdict against him.