H.—7

180

whole building. But I would further recommend a concrete and cement-finished hollow channel all round the building at ground line, connecting down-pipe outlets, and so further securing dry foundations throughout. The only other matter claiming notice is the recommendation of the Commissioners that the characteristic stair turrets on the main froat gable " ba taken down, the stone staircase be taken out, and that they be re-erected with wooden stairs, and be further secured by strong iron bands." These turrets have now been erected for over seven years, and the walls under them have shown no tendency to sink or fracture further than when they were first placed in position, the slight fracture referred to by the Commissioners having existed from the first at the north angle only, this having been caused by a testing shaft having been sunk to a depth of about 40ft. adjacent to this angle, when the underpinning of walls was first suggested by Dr. Hector. The turrets are on 2ft. 6in. and 2ft. walls, built in cement, and having strong iron rails bent into work, and well tied back into walls, securing the whole thoroughly. The stone steps are also each in themselves a continuous source of strength and bond; yet these same stone stops are the very things the Commissioners recommend to bo removed. In construction, position, and surroundings, these characteristic turrets of the Scotch baronial style of architecture, although apparently not meeting the approval of the Commissioners, are exactly similar to hundreds, I may say thousands, to be met with, not only in Scotland and the British Isles, but on the Continent of Europe and elsewhere, and the idea of removing them and re-erecting them with wooden stairs, I can only characterize as grotesque in the extreme. The closing paragraph of the report of the Commissioners is of such a nature as can best be explained by narrating the circumstances leading up to it, and which I most respectfully submit furnish a key to the whole tone of their report, and its hostile character towards the Architect. In his oponing statement the Engineer-in-Charge affirmed on oath that it was in the month of June, iBBS, that he first became aware o£ what he terms defective foundations "at the place where the damage has occurred." The Architect having in his possession letters from the Eesident Engineer, dated the 26th May and lltli June of same year, thereupon asked that the letters from the Eesident Engineer to the Engineer-in-Charge, and those also from the Engineer-in-Charge to the Eesident Engineer, referring to this whole matter and at about the dates named, should be produced. After some delay, they were produced by the Engineer-in-Charge, handed to the Chairman of the Commission, and by him classed as exhibits in the inquiry. Towards the close of the inquiry the Enginoer-in-Charge, for reasons of his own, and which also are disclosed in the evidence brought before the Commission, requested that he might be allowed again to bo sworn, in order that he might affirm, and he did also then affirm on oath, that either he himself or the reporters had made a mistake when it was recorded in his evidence that it was in the month of June, 1885, in which he became aware of defective foundations, and that it should be and really was the month of September. The Architect then called for the reporters' notes, which proved that the month of June was the time stated; he also requested that the letters above referred to, and handed in by the En-gineer-in-Charge as exhibits, should be produced and road. With great difficulty the Chairman of the Commission could be brought to understand what letters were wanted, and the Architect had to repeat and reiterate again and again his request, and to explain that it was the letters already referred to handed in by the Engineer-in-Charge, and linked in with the letters of the 26th May and 11th Juno, 1885, which were required. Search was apparently made for the missing documents, the Commission being delayed-for some time in consequence, but they were not forthcoming, although neither the Engineer-in-Charge nor the Chairman of the Commission affirmed at that time, to the best of my belief, that they did not exist; the fact being that they were asked for, produced, and laid on the table as exhibits at an earlier sitting, and in the presence of all the parties at that sitting. After the conclusion of the inquiry, I became aware that the Engineer-in-Charge had, during an interval between two sittings of the Commission, sent his messenger to obtain this exhibit from the clerk, and,fl believe, did so obtain it. On becoming aware of the circumstance above narrated, and taking it in conjunction with its surroundings, I decided to ask the Commissioners to hold another sitting in order that the whole matter might be cleared up, and therefore wrote as follows : " Seacliff Inquiry. To the Hon. the Commissioners. Gentlemen, —Eeferring to a matter which took place at the last sitting of the Commission, I desire very particularly to bring under your notice that certain important things remain unexplained, and that on this account it is absolutely necessary, in the interest of truth, that there should be a further meeting of the Commissioners, so as to arrive at a correct conclusion on the matters under inquiry. Mr. Blair, in his opening statement, on oath stated that it was in June, 1885, that he first became aware of what he terms ' defective foundations 'at Seacliff. On this matter being under discussion, I called for the correspondence which had passed between Mr. Ussher and Mr. Blair, and between Mr. Blair and Mr. Ussher in connection therewith at the time, and Mr. Blair passed in certain letters which ho said was the correspondence referred to and asked for. On my asking for the production of this same correspondence at the closing sitting, I was informed, after some search, that they were not in the possession of the Commissioners. As I consider it absolutely necessary that the correspondence referred to herein, and also linked in with the letters of the 26th May and 11th June, 1885, and addressed to myself by Mr. Ussher should be in the possession of the Commissioners before they can possibly arrive at a correct judgment in the whole matter ; I now respectfully request that a further meeting of the Commissioners be hold in order to obtain the said correspondence and afford opportunity of obtaining a correct knowledge of their nature and contents. I further respectfully inform you that, unless this correspondence is produced and meeting of Commissioners held, I shall lay the matter before the Colonial Secretary and Minister of Works without delay.—l have, &c, E. A. Lawson. Dunedin, Ist March, 1888." To the above letter I received the following reply: "Dunedin, 2nd March, 1888. Sir, —In reply to your letter dated the Ist instant, in which you request that a further meeting of the Commissioners may be held, in order that certain important matters should be explained, the