Page:Europe in China.djvu/461

 most obvious deficiencies of such persons can restrain them from projecting schemes beyond their strength. For these reasons, Sir Richard had obtained from England the services of a specially competent engineer (T. Kydd) who acted as Superintendent of Water-works and would have re-constructed also the Praya wall, if the marine-lot holders had not proved so obstreperous. A typhoon having demolished the frail Praya wall (August 8, 1867), Sir Richard determined to rebuild the whole Praya in a substantial manner. But unfortunately he encountered, on the part of the lot-holders, the same unflinching opposition which defeated the efforts of his predecessors, Sir J. Bowring and Sir H. Robinson. Sir Richard nevertheless renewed the combat. As the Military Contribution absorbed available funds, he informed the lot-holders concerned in the ruins of the Praya, that they must contribute a fair and reasonable proportion towards the cost of rebuilding the sea-wall of their respective lots. When they refused this request, he invited them to a conference with the Colonial Secretary (C. C. Smith), who informed them (November 2, 1867) that the Attorney General had given an opinion to the effect that each lot-holder was, by virtue of the wording of his lease, under a legal liability to provide for the maintenance of the sea-wall. The lot-holders, who previous to the conference had agreed (October 29, 1867) to resist the demand and came armed with legal opinions, contended that the clause in question had reference to roads, drains, &c. within their respective lots and not to the Praya wall; that, when the first sea-wall was built, they had paid the expenses on the distinct understanding that the subsequent maintenance was to be a burden on the Colony; that they were not answerable for the defective condition of the wall nor bound to repair it. The conference broke up in confusion. Sir Richard sent the lot-holders a letter (November 19, 1867) arguing that it was their fault that the former wall was badly built and that the construction of an insufficient wall had not relieved them of their original obligation. When this proved fruitless, he ordered legal proceedings to be instituted. A test case was selected and a marine-lot holder (R. G. Webster) was