But the matter was not allowed to rest here. The question of the alterations made attracted attention in the House of Commons, and a Committee was appointed to investigate the matter still more closely. The result was a Report declaring that “the Committee impute no blame to Mr. Barry for the course he had taken, and have every reason to believe, that all the alterations hitherto made have conduced to the convenience and general effect of the building.” They approved (as the Lords’ Committee had done) of the new arrangement made by the Board of Works; but they did so expressly on the ground of the “misapprehension” existing as to the course hitherto pursued. Thus the difficulty, which had seemed most formidable, passed away. It was allowed by the architect that alterations, _not involving additional expense_, had been made by his own authority. It is clear that, even if the requirements of the public service had not varied, many alterations must have suggested themselves in the carrying out of so great a work. It was allowed on the other side, that some measure of freedom must be granted to an architect, whose professional character and hope of future reputation were at stake, in the endeavour to make his building as perfect as possible. The only question was, whether the design, in its main features, was still a fair development of that originally selected. This being decided in Mr. Barry’s favour, all serious opposition was at an end, while the opposition already experienced acted perhaps as an useful corrective to his natural tendency to alteration and development of plan. It was, no doubt, in consequence of the difficulties above noticed, that a Commission was appointed on March 17th, 1848, to “superintend the completion of the New Palace.” The Commissioners were Earl de Grey, Sir John F. Burgoyne, and T. Greene, Esq., M.P. They were to “determine upon all designs for fittings, decorations,” &c., “all modifications of plan,” “all arrangements for warming, ventilating, and lighting the building,” subject to the approval of the Treasury, whenever additional cost should be proposed. The office must have been a difficult one, between the Treasury on the one hand and the Board of Works on the other, and although their relations with the architect were of the most friendly character, I cannot find that their appointment greatly facilitated the progress of the work. Such difficulties must be expected by all who work for the public. No one can question the right of the Houses of Lords and Commons to examine, censure, and indirectly control, those who are working for their service. But then these public servants should be left free from other interference, with undivided power and undivided responsibility.