(_a._) An assertion that a percentage of three per cent. had been accepted by Sir J. Soane, Sir R. Smirke, and Mr. John Nash (attached as architects to the Board of Works), and by Mr. Burton (unattached) for public works, and an assumption based upon this statement, that the fixed sum of 25,000_l._ had been calculated by Lord Bessborough as approximately 3 per cent. on the estimated outlay of 707,104_l._ (_b._) A statement (which it would have been somewhat difficult to substantiate) that a fixed sum had been “not unfrequently” substituted for a percentage, in order to “avoid an extension of the works and consequently of the cost,” such as that to which they advert in respect of the New Palace. (_c._) An attempt, afterwards abandoned, to represent Mr. Pugin’s appointment to superintend the internal fittings as relieving the architect of labour and responsibility, and accordingly to deduct the salary (200_l._ a-year) paid to that gentleman, from Sir C. Barry’s professional remuneration. (_d._) An offer (which they considered “fair and even liberal”) to allow three per cent. instead of five on the gross outlay, and to reimburse the architect for the expenses of measurement. In this offer it will be observed that they at once relinquish (it may be presumed as untenable) the principle of the fixed sum, and the bargain made by Lord Bessborough in 1839. To this letter, after a delay caused by serious illness, Sir C. Barry sent on March 14th, 1854, a detailed reply. This reply addresses itself to each of the three points of Mr. Wilson’s argument, and shows-- (_a._) That the practice of the three per cent. remuneration had been abolished for seven years before Lord Bessborough’s proposition was made; that in former times, when the percentage was paid, the architects were relieved of all measuring and making up accounts, which was done by the Board; and that since 1832 five per cent. had been paid upon many important public works, including the British Museum, the National Gallery, the General Post Office, Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, &c. (_b._) That the increase of expenditure was caused by circumstances not under the architect’s control, especially by the requirements of Dr. Reid, and that, as it involved a corresponding increase of labour and responsibility, it formed no reason for diminution of the rate of payment. (_c._) That the post held by Mr. Pugin was not such as to relieve the architect from responsibility, inasmuch as it was distinctly a subordinate one. (_d._) He concludes by reminding the Treasury that mere reimbursement of expenses by no means meets the claim for measurement, and by urging once more his right to the customary remuneration. This letter was so far effectual, that in the correspondence which follows we hear no more of the precedents for the percentage of three per cent., or of the deduction of the salary of Mr. Pugin.