It appears that when the Commissioners of Woods, &c. came to the conclusion communicated in their Report to the Treasury, of the 20th February, 1838, they had before them the detailed and verified estimates from which they had reason to believe that the building would be completed for the sum stated, subject to such considerable additions as must be made according to the report of their surveyors in respect to fittings and other works which had not been the subject of estimate. They, therefore, well knew the whole duty and labour which would devolve on the architect, and with this knowledge they stated their opinion that “the sum of 25,000_l._ would be a fair and liberal remuneration for the labour and responsibility to be imposed on Mr. Barry, in the _superintendence, direction and completion_ of the intended edifice.” In the opinion of my Lords these terms are not susceptible of any other interpretation than that such remuneration was intended to cover every service which would devolve upon the architect in the _completion_ of the building according to the estimates and specifications then before them, and the further contingent services; that it was proposed in lieu of the ordinary per-centage remuneration, and was intended to cover every charge, including that of measuring, which usually devolves on architects receiving such ordinary professional remuneration. It is clear, also, that it was accepted by Sir Charles Barry on that understanding. When the Treasury Letter of the 25th February, 1839, was communicated to him, he requested to be informed of the principle on which the proposed sum had been recommended, in order that he might offer the Board of Woods, &c. a few observations on the subject. This application having been refused by the letter of the surveyor of the Board of 4th April, 1839, Sir Charles Barry addressed a letter to that officer on the 22nd April, 1839, in which he stated that he had no doubt that the proposed amount, _although far short of the customary remuneration which had hitherto been paid to architects for extensive works_, was considered by the Board to be liberal under all the circumstances of the case, and that with this impression he had no wish to do otherwise than bow to its decision. He expressed at the same time his opinion that the amount was very inadequate to the great labour and responsibility that would devolve upon him in the superintendence, direction, and _completion of the intended edifice_, and his trust that when that should be made manifest, there would not be any indisposition on the part of the Board to award to him the remainder of the remuneration which had hitherto been customary on similar occasions.