It is clear that the two schemes were constructed on totally different principles. The scheme of the Commission was, so to speak, an ideal one, drawn up with great skill and knowledge, so as to cover the whole field of English history, and bring out those salient points, which might properly be connected with the palace of the legislature. The scheme of the architect was a practical one, drawn up with reference to the various halls and galleries of the building, and designed to present as grand and perfect a spectacle as possible to those entering and traversing the building. It would have been very desirable that these schemes should have modified and interpenetrated each other. Ideal perfection need not have suffered, had some deference been paid to the actual conditions of locality. But such was not the case. The Commission indeed refer to the architect’s scheme as enabling them first to “select fit localities” for the works of art, and next to “proceed to a general scheme suitable to the localities selected.” Yet it is difficult to trace in the arrangements actually made any reference to the architectural character of the halls selected, or to the actual convenience of exhibition of the works of art themselves. The original recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee, which gave rise to the Commission, was that “a plan should be determined on, by which the architect and the artists employed should work not only in conjunction with but in aid of one another.” The actual fact is, that, in some cases, the works of art are utterly at variance with the architecture, and ill-adapted to their position. Thus statues, beautiful in themselves, are executed on such a scale as to ruin the architectural effect of the halls, in which they are erected. This is the case with the statues in St. Stephen’s Hall, and the fine group by Gibson in the Prince’s chamber. In some cases fine paintings, such as Herbert’s magnificent picture of Moses delivering the Law, are in positions in which the public can rarely see them, while St. Stephen’s Hall, through which the main tide of people flows, is still left without a single picture. The series of statues of the British sovereigns is to be divided among three or four different localities, so that it will be impossible to see them at one time, or have them executed on one uniform scale. These things ought not to have been, and it is hardly possible that they should have taken place, had the Commission included one member, who had before his eyes the building as a whole, and the scale and succession of its various parts. Their labours have led to great and valuable results: it is a pity that these results should have suffered, even in a slight degree, from want of practical knowledge.