HANG Brief statement of the grounds of difference between the Architect of the New Palace at Westminster and the Lords of the Treasury. 1. Because their Lordships have assumed to themselves the right in their own case to put a value upon the architect’s services, at variance with professional custom, and contrary both to law and equity. 2. Because that, whilst the ordinary rate of professional commission is far from an adequate remuneration for more than 20 years’ devotion of the architect’s life to the carrying into effect, under peculiarly trying circumstances and great responsibilities, a work so extensive, intricate, and elaborate, as the New Palace at Westminster, their Lordships’ offer involves a sacrifice on his part of at least 20,000_l._ of his accustomed commission, exclusive of interest of money upon payments unduly withheld, amounting to not less than 15,000_l._ 3. Because the offer made by their Lordships, which is assumed to be in accordance with precedent, is really at variance with the allowance hitherto made to architects for all public buildings. For where they have been employed upon the whole of the duties undertaken by the architect of the New Palace of Westminster, the allowance has been _invariably_ 5, and in some instances equal to more than 5 per cent. upon the expenditure; and although, in some cases, architects have been paid less than 5 per cent., it is only when they have been relieved of the financial portion, which is by no means the least onerous of their duties and responsibilities. 4. Because, with one exception, their Lordships do not recognise several claims for extra services, which form no part of the duties of the architect of the New Palace, to which no payment by commission can apply, and upon which he has incurred a considerable outlay. 5. Because that, whilst, for the sake of avoiding all further contention with a Government and affecting an immediate settlement, the architect had consented to forego his full claims as to percentage by complying with the principle of their Lordships’ offer, and only awaited their promised explanation of its details, and an answer relative to a proposition made to them respecting a portion of his services which had not been recognised, their Lordships without any further communication with him, framed their Minute of the 29th January, 1856, containing a decision on the case, and immediately laid that and a previous Minute on the table of each House of Parliament, unaccompanied by the correspondence or any notice of the negotiation which led to them.