H—7

158

with the shifting of the ground ; Ido not say that it has, however. I have not seen the building for four years ; I am, therefore, not competent to give an opinion. One more word about this plan and these calculations of Mr. Hay : I must ask you, gentlemen, in all seriousness to discard the plan and calculations from your consideration, because the plan is unreliable and, for the reason I have given, it is impossible to base his calculations on it. When he found that his witness was put in a corner, Mr. Blair said that he had told Mr. Hay the thickness of the foundations. Then, il lie had so told Mr. Hay, why did not the plan show it? Another point about this plan is—l do not know whether it purports to show the ambulatory-wall; but, if it does, there is no doubt that the wall is not built that way—the footings are brought up to the full width ; where the set-off should bo there is solid concrete [indicating on plan]. That was done by Mr. Brindley's orders, in order to give greater strength to the foundations. This plan is not a truthful one, inasmuch as it does not show the foundations as they exist: the other one is worthless and misleading, and one that never should have been laid before the Minister for Public Works. I now come to charge No. 3 : that by " scamping " the work and reducing the size of the foundations I have caused the damage to the building. I have no doubt that, with the exceptions I have pointed out, Mr. Hay's calculations may.be taken as perfectly correct. But I say that his theories are all wrong : not one of them is correct. For instance, he says that the principal cause of the cracking is the settlement of the ambulatory-wall, and he gave you the variation of level at the different piers. The result is this : that the ambulatory-wall is 80ft. long, and that along that line there is only a settlement of Jfin. I asked Mr. Hay this question when he was under examination : if the building is 40ft. high, and the ambulatory-wall is 80ft. long, what would be the width of the crack; but he would not answer me till I told him that it would be exactly -Jin. Now, in this particular place where we ought to have had a crack, we have it in evidence that there is no crack whatever. In fact, the front of the airing-court is true, as it should be. You, as practical men, know that the first signs of settlement would show at the window-sills and heads ; but these were in line and plumb. How does that agree with Mr. Hay's theory that the ambulatory-wall has caused all this mischief? Again, Mr. Hay goes into calculations as to the earth at the back of the wall; and I have no doubt that his calculation, on the basis that he made it, is correct. But he has entirely left out of consideration the important factor of the pressure and percolation of the water through this tank. You have the evidence of Donald that the water was percolating through there—that, as he put it, the water was " seeping " through the bank. Mr. Ha.y has never taken that factor into account, though it is a principal one. If I were compelled to give evidence—though I have not seen the building for four years —I should say that the pressure of water at the back has moved and is moving the ground. Ido not mean to say that the whole of the foundation has been pushed—probably it has ; but Ido say that the top of the foundation has been pushed over without the bottom moving. What I think is a most wonderful thing is that Mr. Hay has never yet tried the base of the foundations; therefore, I must again ask you to disregard his evidence as valueless. You have seen his plans and heard his evidence ; Ido not know how you regard his calculations, but 1 certainly can place no reliance whatever on them. As I have already said, there is no doubt whatever about his measurements'being correct, but I affirm that his theories are all wrong. Then Mr. Blair has produced a plan showing the buttresses, and he said that this buttress [indicating on plan], after it was put in, had almost effectually stopped that part of the building from cracking. How in the world can the buttress support the structure, as he alleges ;it is supporting the thrust of water and clay at the back wall ? To an extent it did effect the stoppage of the cracking, but if the foundations are sinking then the largest of these buttresses is going down with it. W 7e have it in evidence that when the first drain was put in it had the effect of stopping the cracking, but that the cracking started again. A second drain was put in, and exactly the same thing happened, as it did when a third drain was put in. We have it in evidence that one drain stopped the cracking for nearly two years ; that is to say, there was no fresh cracking. What can be clearer than this proof of the cause of this slipping? If this drain stopped the cracking for two years, is it not reasonable to suppose that that drain carried off the water during that time, and that when the cracks showed again after the lapse of a considerable time the drains had got choked ? That is the only and proper theory that can be adopted. There is a matter that I felt very much inclined to ask Mr. Lawson a question about, but I felt ashamed to do so then. However, I can do so in my statement now, and lam prepared to do so. I have known Mr. Lawson for a great many years, lam proud to have known him, not only as an architect, but as a friend ; but during the whole of that time Mr. Lawson has never received from mo one shilling as " tip," though I have drawn thousands of pounds through his certificate. I have paid him. nothing beyond his ordinary percentage of plans, which every contractor pays to every architect. lam prepared to say further, that never in my life have I offered a shilling to any man as "tip," and Mr. Lawson is the last man I should think of insulting by doing so. That is one of the insinuations that has been spread broadcast about town in connection with this work. But if a swindle was worked, necessarily Mr. Brindley, Mr. Lawson and I must all have been in it. I could not have done it myself. I now come to the unfortunate disputes between Mr. Brindley and myself, which account for the letters he wrote. There can be no doubt that Mr. Brindley has written some very severe letters, and there can be doubt either that there was a good deal of friction between us. I have already explained in several ways how that occurred. He said, for instance, that he had kept a certificate back until Dick was discharged. Now, I never discharged Dick, nor did any one else, because no one else had the power to do so. It has been stated in evidence that Dick was never discharged, but left of his own accord under a sense of injustice, as he himself described it, and on that account could not stay on the work any longer. Mr. Dick stated—l did not care to prompt him with leading questions —that he left because he felt that Mr. Brindley's action was an injustice to myself, and making him very uncomfortable. Mr. Brindley spoke to me several times and tried to get me to discharge Dick, and on one occasion he did go the length of saying that, unless I did discharge him, he (Brindley) would not stay on the work. As Dick lias stated in his evidence, Mr. Brindley has had it all his own way. I might mention that on one occasion Mr. Dick was not quite satisfied,