7th.—On the publication of my plans by order of the House of Commons, in June, 1852, they were much canvassed in the public press, and severely animadverted upon in the _Quarterly Review_. The possibility of their success was long denied, and Mr. Hosking was silent. That success is now established, and Mr. Hosking claims the merit as his own. A. PANIZZI. B. M., May 18, 1858. ----- Footnote S: The name of Mr. Hosking occurs repeatedly in the printed document here referred to as that of the author of the plan therein put forth. ----- Previously to the issue of this statement, Panizzi had asked for, and obtained, from the architect his opinion on the dissimilarity between the two plans. “Grosvenor Street, April 8th, 1858. “Dear Sir, I feel no hesitation in complying with your request, and stating that the idea of a circular Reading-Room with surrounding Library, and with the divisions formed wholly of book-cases, was perfectly original and entirely your own, and totally unlike the solid masonic structure devised by Mr. Hosking for the exhibition of sculpture. The two plans neither did, nor do, strike me as having any resemblance to each other, and that is what I meant to express in my note of last July. The architectural features of the present dome I am answerable for, not you, and it is obviously as unlike the Pantheon as any two domes can be. It was Michael Angelo’s cupola of St. Peter which suggested the present lines of yours. Yours, &c., &c., SYDNEY SMIRKE. Neither Panizzi nor Hosking lacked supporters amongst the numerous critics and judges who, as a matter of course, came forward on such an occasion; and a war, supported by newspapers on either side, was vigorously carried on for upwards of a year. Into the details of the controversy it would be tedious and irrelevant to enter; but whoever will undertake impartially to peruse the records of it (many of which are still extant), will have neither doubt nor difficulty in ascribing the victory to Panizzi. But as “there is a river in Macedon and there is, moreover, a river at Monmouth,” so it must be admitted that there were, at least, three sterling points of resemblance between the two designs. They are as follows:—1st. That for each was chosen the same plot of ground, but that the merit of originality in such choice belongs to neither designer. 2nd. That both buildings had domes, but these domes so dissimilar that comparison is out of the question. 3rd (and here lay the most striking point of resemblance), That in design, purpose, execution, proportion, and every other detail, Panizzi’s building differs “toto cœlo” from the structure devised by Hosking.