2ndly. They adduce “the extent and importance of the work,” as a ground for reducing the architect’s accustomed remuneration. I submit, that the unusual extent and importance of the work is a reason rather for increasing than diminishing the customary remuneration of the architect, inasmuch as his responsibilities are more than proportionally increased, and the demands upon his taste, skill, and judgment are far greater, than in works of less magnitude and importance. For with respect to extensive and complicated plans, such as that of the New Palace at Westminster, where requirements of great number and widely different character have to be combined and arranged, with a view not only to insure convenience in detail, but also the utmost perfection that is attainable as a whole, it will be manifest to all, who are able to form a correct opinion on the subject, that the labour and skill required are immeasurably greater, than in buildings of comparatively small dimensions, designed with reference to one single object. 3rdly. The Commissioners of Woods allude to “the nature and description of the work” in support of their recommendation. I am not exactly aware what meaning may have been intended to be conveyed by these remarks. If it is meant that the skill and labour required to produce the building in question is less than are required in other public buildings or private works, I cannot admit the truth of such an assumption. As however the New Palace at Westminster is now sufficiently advanced to allow of an accurate judgment being formed as to the amount of labour, skill, and responsibility, that has been incurred in producing it, I invite a comparison between it and any other public building of modern times; and I think it will be evident, even to the uninitiated, that in point of variety of design, elaboration of details, and difficulties of combination and construction, the labour and responsibility incurred is much greater, than in any other modern edifice that can be mentioned.