(Signed) “DUNCANNON, B. C. STEPHENSON, A. MILNE.” A request on the part of the architect to be informed of the principle on which the sum of 25,000_l._ was calculated, having been refused, he addressed the following reply to the office:-- _Foley Place, 22nd April, 1839._ “SIR,--As the Board has not deemed it right to make me acquainted with the principle upon which the amount of remuneration for my services in respect of the intended New Houses of Parliament has been determined, I cannot, of course, form any opinion, and will not question the correctness of the data upon which it is founded. I make no doubt, however, that the proposed amount, although very far short of the customary remuneration which has hitherto been paid to architects for extensive public works, is considered by the Board to be liberal under all the circumstances of the case; and therefore, with this impression, I have no wish to do otherwise than bow to its decision. In so doing, however, I cannot, in justice to myself and the profession to which I belong, refrain from expressing most decidedly my opinion that the amount is very inadequate to the great labour and responsibility that will devolve upon me in the superintendence, direction, and completion of the intended edifice; and I trust when this is made manifest, as I feel sure it will be, upon the completion of any considerable portion of it, that there will not be any indisposition on the part of the Board (especially if the work should prove to be satisfactory to the public at large) to award to me the remainder of the remuneration which has hitherto been customary on similar occasions. “I am, &c., (Signed) “CHARLES BARRY.” To this letter no rejoinder was made. On January 2nd, 1841, the architect again addressed the office, stating that “the time was now arrived when some permanent arrangement must be made for the measuring and making out the accounts of work executed,” and requesting authority to make the requisite arrangements, the expense of which he conceived “to be included under the head of contingencies.” The office replied (January 18th) that this duty belonged to the architect as such, and that the expense was provided for in the professional remuneration already fixed. To this statement, on January 28th, the architect replied, pleading that the expense of measurement had been borne by the Board whenever less than five per cent. had been paid to the architect. He received a formal reply, declining to alter the view already taken by the office, and the correspondence was closed.