11.—7

168

exceedingly, and no one has been brought to show that there is any vortical settlement in the Seacliff foundations, which is the only proof of weakness as to these foundations or any foundations. The foundations persist in standing in this respect firm and sure ; and, although bodily a portion of the whole building has been thrust IGJ-in. towards the sea, the foundations are stubborn, and in spite of having been maligned, even in the Parliament of the country, are to-day there to testify to their sufficiency. I shall also very shortly deal with the evidence given by Mr. Peter Seaton Hay : The evidence of this expert, who was introduced to the Commission with such a flourish of trumpets lay Mr. Blair, was of the most peculiar kind, to say the least of it. He it is who has produced before us the famous set of one-sided plans of which so much has been said, and who ventured the opinion that the deflection of fin. in the full length of the ambulatory floor of the north wing of the asylum had been the fertile source of all the damage which had occurred thereabouts, including the twistings and contortions, cracks and general torturings of the structure; also, that the front wall of the said ambulatory had so behaved and demeaned itself that it had bucked out the whole of the north wall of the building several inches at the top, while, strange to say, itself had persisted in remaining plumb, and is there plumb to-day. That is one of the theories—the remarkable theories referred to by Mr. Gore —that is brought here to be believed by us. This witness also flatly contradicts Sir James Hector's theory, and denies that there could be a possibility of the whole of No. 2 north block moving towards the eastward, while himself producing the very figures and measurements which establish the absolute correctness of that theory. What are we to think of this man, and of his evidence, and of the worth of it ? Gentlemen, I trust, whatever else we may be, we have all got some common-sense, and I trust, also, that we will take common-sense with us when we give evidence on such a point. There is not much of it hero in Mr. Hay's evidence, I am sorry to say. I also say he also came to curse us, and behold he has blessed us exceedingly, even more exceedingly than Mr. Ussher. Mr. Blair, seeing himself thus cornered, as it were, by his own two chief witnesses, what does he do after the inquiry is nearly over? He rushes out Mr. Marchbauks to the scene, and he comes in with a report. Well, gentlemen, I prefer to take the report of a man who has measured the building on the site, not that of a man who took a flying survey over the country, to guide us as to this building. He brought Mr. Marchbanks to produce another prophecy of smooth things, if he could do so, on his behalf; but, for uniqueness and general applicability, I trust that the Commissioners will value the efforts of Mr. Hay more than those of Mr. Marchbanks. The mention of this whole ground in the entire neighbourhood of Seacliff, even down to the trig, station that he has mentioned as the starting point, is of so deceitful a character that it may be possible that this same trig, station that Mr. Marchbanks started from at Warrington may be down to the sea before very long for all that we know, and the bank on which it stands may be marching there now for all that we know. Now, as to the cause of the damage—the real cause of the damage—we have Dr. Hector's remarks when he was here. I take it that it has been conclusively proved, and that from the evidence of Mr. Blair's own special expert, Mr. P. S. Hay, that the cross portion of the north wing of the asylum known as No. 2 has moved in an easterly direction 16|in. at one point and 13|in. at another; and, whatever reason may be assigned for this by the department, it is only clearly in keeping with the whole tenour and scope of Sir James Hector's reports of 1881, and also in keeping with his clear and definite evidence given before the Commissioners on this occasion. Mr. Blair in his opening statement endeavoured to make it appear that both Sir James Hector and myself had fallen from the idea of the isolating-drain being a necessity. Most conclusively, however, it has been proved before you that his statements in this respect are entirely wrong, and I emphatically again reiterate my statement that I never did resile from requiring to have this isolating-drain made, and in the very document he quotes I refer to it, asking to have the drain further and deeper, and in accordance with No. 2 plan, which has been produced before you, made. That is the same isolating-drain I referred to at that time, and if I was silent for a time you cannot much wonder at it, considering the way in which my communications were treated. Sir James Hector has stated before you bis opinion that the motion of the strata corresponds exactly with the movement which has been shown to have taken place at the north wing of the Seacliff building, and he has also stated very distinctly that the drains inserted by" the Public Works Department are not such as he approves of, or that he has in his mind now ; and that, in fact, such ground cannot be drained so as to cure or cut off the movement except by isolation —isolation—the very isolation he suggests in his report in 1881, and which I urgently asked should bo then done, and which has not been done yet. As to Mr. Brindley's evidence, the Inspector of Works, and keeping in view his onerous and responsible position, I cannot characterise it as satisfactory, I am sorry to say, either in one way or another, for while ho condemns in the one breath he excuses in the other, as to the whole works throughout, and I feel inclined to sum up the whole of his evidence by quoting the old adage that " It's an ill bird that fouls its own nest." He has done this, and lam sorry for it. I am very sorry that Mr. Brindley has placed himself in such a humiliating position as he has done. In the absence of others, he himself admits he had the sole responsibility as to the proper conduct of the works, as, indeed, he was on the works having the double authority of the appointment under the Public Works Department, and also the deputed authority of the Architect. From month to month for years he made up and passed certificates for progress-payments to the Contractor, and yet what does he do ? He comes forward now and gives evidence which, if true, should have stayed his hand in issuing these, and made it his imperative duty to report differently from what he did at the time on the works in progress. But I attribute the colour now given to his evidence as greatly attributable to his position. Brought here, as we are informed by Mr. Blair or the department, as a servant of that department involuntarily, his evidence now is moulded to the position. I say involuntarily, and by his nature, I believe. All Mr. Brindley's correspondence is open to the Commission, and it will be seen that any fault-finding of his, duly reported at the time, had ample attention from me, and where necessary satisfactory redress was afforded him and support. There arc several points, however, in which Mr. Brindley's evidence is very decided. He evidently