Page:Crime and government at Hong Kong.pdf/96

 preference to abiding my threat of exposure, found it prudent not to endorse the names of the greater number of them on his information.

Of the three whom he did call, nevertheless, the first and principal witness, Dr. Bridges, was materially contradicted, not only by the other two, but also by himself, and this on matters of fact within his own knowledge.

Laying hold of these startling contradictions, the defendant, in publishing to his readers the victory he had gained over his prosecutor, distinctly charged the late acting Colonial Secretary with deliberate perjury in the witness-box; assigned the particulars of his charge; and invited a new prosecution of himself for preferring it.

So pointed was the accusation, that Dr. Bridges found himself compelled, by the pressure of public opinion, to notice it.

But, to the wonder and derision of every one, the only notice he did take of it was, by circulating, through another of the newspapers, a letter, informing the world that he meant to take none at all.

This affectation of indifference did not serve. It came too late. Within the past twelve months, he had twice personally prosecuted the same newspaper—in the absence of a material witness—for alleged libels of a much less serious character; and the very perjury, now charged against him, had respect to evidence, given by him in support of a third prosecution, instituted against the same, in the name of his own Government.

Consequently, his present determination not to prosecute, when considered in its natural connection