does not walk briskly
through the streets from his starting-place to his goal. There is no
need to show that some other person is hindered by him in his loitering,
since obviously that _might_ be the case; and besides, his loitering
might hinder another from forming in his mind a legitimate wish to be
there, and so might do him a very special and peculiar injury. In fact,
gentlemen, it has been doubted whether this grave offence of obstruction
is not always being committed by everybody, as a corollary to the well-
known axiom in physics that two bodies cannot occupy the same space at
one and the same time. So much, gentlemen, for the lesser accusation. As
to the far more serious one, I scarcely know in what words to impress
upon you the gravity of the accusation. The crime is an attack on the
public safety, gentlemen; if it has been committed, gentlemen--if it has
been committed. On that point you are bound by your oaths to decide
according to the evidence; and I must tell you that the learned counsel
was in error when he told you that I should direct your views as to that
evidence. It is for you to say whether you believe that the witnesses
were speaking what was consonant with truth. But I am bound to point out
to you that whereas the evidence for the prosecution was clear, definite,
and consecutive, that for the defence had no such pretensions. Indeed,
gentlemen, I am at a loss to discover why the prisoner put those
illustrious and respectable personages to so much trouble and
inconvenience merely to confirm in a remarkable way the evidence of the
sergeant and the constable. His Grace the Archbishop said that there
were but three persons present when the prisoner _began_ speaking; but he
has told us very clearly that before the end of the discourse there were
ten, or more. You must look at those latter words, _or more_, as a key
to reconcile the apparent discrepancy between his Grace's evidence and
that of constable Potlegoff. This, however, is a matter of little
importance, after what I have told you about the law in the case of
obstruction. His Grace's clear remembrance of the horrible language of
the prisoner, and the shuddering disgust that it produced on him, is a
very different matter. Although his remembrance of the _ipsissima verba_
does not quite tally with that of the constable, it is clear that both
the Archbishop and the policeman have noted the real significance of what
was said: The owners