After examining the various methods and styles of painting, fresco, oil, encaustic, and stereo-chrome (or water-glass) painting, and the best materials for sculpture, they had proceeded in the first instance to assume the superintendence of purely decorative works, and invite competition even in wood carving, metal-work, and stained glass. Fortunately they were led to reconsider this step, finding no doubt the insuperable practical difficulties which it involved, and to report “that experience proved that it was on many accounts advisable to leave with the architect the responsibility of all strictly decorative works.” They add that “he had undertaken on his own responsibility the whole of the decorative works, except the stained glass,” and that they deemed it right to abstain from all interference, and disclaim all responsibility in the matter. The tone of the Report appears to convey some surprise and disapprobation of the course adopted by the architect; but any one who considers the wide interpretation which may be given to the word “decoration,” and the absolute impossibility of distinguishing between decorative and constructional work, or of securing unity of effect, when the building is in one hand and the decoration in another, will probably conclude, that, as he was not a member of the Commission, no other course was open to him, consistent with due care, either of his own reputation or of the public service. The Commission accordingly confined their attention to “works of art,” and decided that (generally speaking) the painting and sculpture should be historical, and that their subjects should be chosen from English history and literature.