We are aware that we are not called upon in selecting and classifying the plans for your Majesty’s approbation to make the cost of any design an object of our consideration; and we fully agree in the prudence of having abstained from requiring the competitors to furnish estimates, which would have been productive of no public advantage, whilst the trouble and expense attending them would have been a considerable bar to competition.... We are conscious that in the plan we have selected for your Majesty’s approbation, the enriched appearance of the several elevations will naturally excite suspicion, that it cannot be carried into effect but at an enormous expense. In the absence of the detail of any portion of the work, we can form no perfect idea of the architect’s intentions, but even with the minute drawings before us, we have sufficient evidence to lead us to the belief that, from the unbroken character and general uniformity of the different fronts, and external decorations being wholly unnecessary in any of the courts, no design worthy of the country, of equal magnitude, can offer greater facilities for economy in the execution.[62] The proposal here made to appoint a controlling commission (which many conceived to imply a recommendation that the original commission should be continued for this purpose) was unusual, and Mr. Barry was censured by his professional brethren for not protesting against it. Probably he felt that it was impracticable; certainly it was not carried out, and he was one of the last men in the world to submit to minute or vexatious control. Meanwhile he left matters to take their course. The Report of the Commissioners was approved by a Select Committee of the Houses. An estimate was made by the architect, aided by Messrs. Chawner and Hunt, and afterwards, by the direction of the Board of Works, tested by Messrs. Seward and Chawner. The calculated expense was about 800,000_l._, exclusive of furniture and fittings.[63] The period fixed for its completion (with little foresight of the difficulties that must intervene) was about six years, and on this notion was based the calculation of the architect’s remuneration, out of which arose the harassing and painful controversy, to be more particularly narrated hereafter. All at present seemed favourable; and the general opinion of the public ratified the choice of the Commissioners. The triumph was one of which any man might feel proud; and the work, commenced by the architect at the age of forty, in the prime of life and vigour, might have been expected to be carried out as auspiciously as it had been begun.[64]