“Their Lordships have therefore directed me to transmit to you herewith the enclosed copy of their Minute of the 4th instant, in order that you may be informed of the views by which this Board has been governed in the matter. “You will learn from that Minute that this Board has not in its recent correspondence with Sir Charles Barry proposed any new principle with regard to the professional remuneration of architects employed on public works, but has, on the contrary, endeavoured to carry out in a liberal spirit an arrangement, made in 1838, in consequence of opinions expressed in Parliament, and acquiesced in by Sir Charles Barry in the following year, as shown by the correspondence quoted in the inclosed Minute, which took place in 1838 and 1839, and you will observe that the only objection then raised by Sir Charles Barry regarded the amount of remuneration proposed, and not the principle on which it was based. Their Lordships feel that you might, with greater propriety, call upon a member of your own body for an explanation of the motives by which he was governed, rather than address a remonstrance to Her Majesty’s Government against the deviation, acquiesced in by him in 1839, from the rate of charge recognised by the profession. “I am, &c., (Signed) “JAMES WILSON.” The correspondence ended with their acknowledgement of this reply, accompanied by a statement that “it was only after a careful examination of the whole of the Parliamentary papers connected with the subject, that the Council arrived at their own conclusions thereon, and framed and unanimously adopted the resolution in question.” It was not indeed likely that the Government would allow this interposition to modify action, which they had formally adopted and publicly announced. But the interposition itself was very gratifying to Sir C. Barry, as an acknowledgment that he was fighting the battle of the profession, and a testimony of the sympathy, which went with him in a difficult and unequal contest. It would have been well, if his letter of the 15th had been absolutely final. But, as was perhaps inevitable, difficulties of detail arose in carrying out the scheme laid down by the Treasury, and some acrimonious correspondence was the result. Under the irritation caused by these petty disputes, the architect once more embodied his views in a formal protest, which was sent to the Board of Works, and met by a rejoinder from Mr. H. A. Hunt, their surveyor. Neither the protest nor the rejoinder add much new matter to the facts of the case, and they need not be recorded here.