All these causes were at work in swelling the excess of expenditure. Some of them were altogether beyond the architect’s control; for others he was partially responsible. It was his earnest desire that the magnificence of the building should be worthy of its grand scale and still grander destination. He thought that, in the pursuit of this object, expense was to a great nation a secondary consideration; for the sum voted year by year for the purpose was after all a sum comparatively insignificant in the aggregate of the public estimates. It is undoubtedly true that his own sanguine temperament led him to undervalue difficulties and expense in carrying out what he thought desirable, and his fastidious taste, showing itself in numerous alterations, tended to increase actual expenditure. But these errors (if errors they were) were but the excrescences of that ardent desire for perfection, which was his real and principal motive. Nor does it seem that the public verdict would greatly condemn his theoretical principles. Those who have attacked the excess of expenditure (when they have not followed mere fashion or acted in pure ignorance) have done so, because they conceived that perfection had not been attained, and that accordingly the expenditure had been so much waste. On the final opinion, which shall be entertained of the building in itself, will depend also the opinion, which will prevail on the secondary question. Much, however, of the action of the authorities in the matter of the remuneration seemed to proceed on the principle, that, since an architect by increasing expenditure increases his percentage, he should not be allowed to profit by what is at least _primâ facie_ a misdoing. On the general bearing of this principle on the remuneration by percentage it is not needful to speak. But those, who knew Sir C. Barry, will be well aware that, in any increase of expenditure, nothing could be further from his thoughts than the idea of his own pecuniary aggrandisement, and nothing was more painful to him than the imputation, expressly or indirectly, of any such unworthy motive. The fact is, that the present building, and the one for which the estimate was made, although they are one in general principles of plan and design, are yet wholly different both in size and in decoration. To the bearing of this fact on the remuneration controversy, as well as on the question of expenditure, it is needless to do more than refer. The building must be judged in the matter of costliness as it stands; and, when its cubical contents are estimated, and its style considered, it will be found that excessive costliness has been attributed to it without adequate ground. Such is a brief statement of one of the most interesting and important professional controversies of late years.[88] Without assuming a right to pronounce judgment, certain points may not unfairly be noticed, as summing up the really important features of the case.