SIR,--I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 5th instant, enclosing copy of a Minute of the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty’s Treasury, dated the 29th ultimo, on the subject of my claims as the architect of the New Palace at Westminster. As there are some passages in that Minute that appear to be founded upon a misapprehension of what has passed, I am anxious to call your attention to several of the explanations which I have already given in my letters and communications on the subject. 1st. With respect to the employment of the late Mr. Pugin, I have already stated, with reference to a claim made by their Lordships for a set-off on my commission for moneys paid to him, that he was not employed upon any duties that devolve upon me as the architect of the New Palace, inasmuch as all designs for that building have emanated from myself, but as the superintendent of the wood-carving department, in carrying my designs into effect, to which office he was appointed by the Government at a salary. 2ndly. With reference to the measurement of the work, I have already explained, that a portion of it was executed by my own clerks of works, and not, as stated in their Lordships’ Minute, by the officers of the Board of Works. 3rdly. That as the mention which is made of the furniture in the Minute may possibly lead to an inference that I have been in the habit of supplying furniture to the New Palace, I am anxious to repeat, that I have only been employed to make the designs for it, see to the proper execution of the contract, and check the accounts. With reference to the remark in their Lordships’ Minute, as to the duration of the misunderstanding between myself and the Government in respect of my claims, I have to observe, that one of my greatest hardships has been the constant delays and postponements which have occurred in the consideration of my case; and that, during a period of more than 15 years, I have made every effort in my power to effect a settlement upon fair and honourable terms, and have constantly urged, without effect, the propriety of a reference by which I should have been perfectly willing to abide. Lastly, I would beg to notice an omission in their Lordships’ Minute on the subject of Mr. White’s reply to their last proposal on the 12th December last, and to observe, that he did not then decline to accept the principle of it, but, on the contrary, accepted it, reserving only a question of a portion of the extra services to which that principle does not apply, and for which he proposed a fixed sum, or a reference to arbitration, to which proposal no official answer has yet been returned.