So much only is it necessary to remark on the general principle. On the particular case I must add (what will in all probability be generally allowed) that a building of a highly ornate and artistic design, carried out for a public body, whose requirements and instructions varied greatly from time to time, and requiring constant attendance on official personages and Parliamentary Committees, was one for which the regular percentage would be (to say the least) no excessive remuneration. It is true that the gross outlay was very great, but it was spread over a period of about twenty years. It absorbed almost the whole of the architect’s time, and gradually destroyed most of his private practice. After 1842 that practice, which would naturally have continued to extend, both in scale and area, began to diminish, and it is likely that pecuniarily he would have been nearly as well off, if he had been able to devote himself to private work. There was nothing in the general features of the case, which could make it right to treat it as an exceptional one. It is therefore necessary to inquire into the special circumstances, which were held by the Government to require a deviation from the established usage. The designs and estimates were accepted, and the works commenced on July 3rd, 1837, without any official communication with the architect on the subject of remuneration. On March 1st, 1839 (_i. e._ _more than nineteen months after the commencement of the building_) he received from the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests (the “Board of Works”) a copy of a letter from the Treasury, approving of the following recommendation from the office of Public Works,[86] and ordering it to be observed in the remuneration of the architect:-- “THE subject of the remuneration to be made to Mr. Barry, as the architect selected for superintending the erection of the New Houses of Parliament, having been pressed upon the attention of this Board, in consequence of the opinions expressed at different times in both Houses of Parliament against the principle of remunerating architects by a commission or percentage upon the amount of their estimates, we beg leave to state to your Lordships, that in deference to those opinions, we have given the subject our best and most mature consideration; and that having carefully considered all the circumstances of this case, the extent and importance of the building, the nature and description of the several works, the very large amount of expenditure contemplated in Mr. Barry’s estimate, and the period within which it is proposed that such expenditure should be incurred,--we are therefore of opinion, that the sum of 25,000_l._ will be a fair and liberal remuneration for the labour and responsibility to be imposed on Mr. Barry in the superintendence, direction, and completion of the intended edifice.