Chapter XXII: Appendix: Contents (2)

In respect to the cost of measuring the work as it has proceeded,
my Lords advert to the fact, that in the arrangements between the
Board of Works and architects alluded to in the former part of this
communication the understanding was, that that cost should be borne
by the Board of Works. My Lords are, therefore, of opinion that you
should be held free from any charge on that account. They have
therefore requested that the Board of Works will report to this
Board all the facts in connexion with the measurement of the works,
and my Lords will be prepared to reimburse you any sum which you
shall appear to have expended thereon.

I have to add that my Lords have been pleased further to request
that the Board of Works will report fully to this Board as to the
best mode in which the measurement of the work should in future be
made as they proceed, having reference specially to that plan which
will afford the most secure check upon public expenditure.

I am, &c.

(Signed) JAMES WILSON.

(_c._) REPLY OF SIR C. BARRY, MARCH, 1854.

From SIR C. BARRY to the Treasury.

Clapham Common, 14 March, 1854.

SIR,--I regret that in consequence of a severe attack of illness
more than two months since, from which I have not yet entirely
recovered, I have been prevented from replying at an earlier period
to your letter of the 8th ultimo, relative to my remuneration as
the architect of the New Palace at Westminster.

The desire evinced by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s
Treasury to be guided, in determining the amount of my
remuneration, by the precedent established in respect of the
payments hitherto made to architects for the public buildings of
the country generally, is all that I can fairly expect at their
Lordships’ hands, and is accordingly acknowledged with feelings of
gratitude on my part. The fixed sum of 25,000_l._, originally
proposed by the late Lord Bessborough as a recompense for my
services as the architect of the New Palace at Westminster, which,
be it observed, was no less than 10,000_l._ below what I was justly
entitled to upon the amount of my estimate, was unfairly forced
upon me, and I was compelled, under the existing circumstances, to
acquiesce, but under a protest as to its insufficiency, the force
of which has been greatly strengthened by the experience I have now
had during a period of 17 years, in carrying into effect those
portions of the New Palace which are now completed.

My acquiescence in the sum proposed by the late Lord Bessborough
has, notwithstanding my protest and the manifest insufficiency of
the amount, been deemed to be a bargain, the conditions of which
were, that for a given sum of money the architect should carry into
effect a given design in a given period, namely, six years, which
conditions have been long set aside by circumstances over which I
have had no control. By what process the late Lord Bessborough
arrived at the conclusion that 25,000_l._ was a fit and proper
remuneration for the architect of such a building as the New Palace
at Westminster, I have no means of knowing; but certainly it could
not have been, as the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury
seem to imagine, from any precedent then existing in his
department, when all architects, without distinction, received at
the least 5 per cent. upon the cost of their respective works. The
precedent to which their Lordships allude, of paying the
architects, who were formerly attached for a time to that Board, at
the rate of 3 per cent., had then been abolished nearly seven
years. But assuming, for the sake of argument, that his Lordship
could have been guided, which is not in the least degree likely, by
the precedent which had formerly been acted upon in his department
in respect of its attached architects, it should be borne in mind,
that although they received only 3 per cent. upon works, they were
relieved of one of the most important of their professional duties,
namely, the labour and responsibility of making contracts,
measuring and making up accounts, &c., which it is evident the
Board of Works has always considered to be equal to a further
allowance of 2 per cent.; for as regards all other architects (with
the exception, under special circumstances, of Mr. Burton in
respect of a portion only of the public works executed under his
direction) who have been, both formerly and since, employed upon
public works, and who have been called upon to perform that duty,
they have invariably received the accustomed amount of remuneration
of 5 per cent. upon the cost of the respective works.

The following is a list of the most important public buildings upon
which the respective architects have received 5 per cent. since the
year 1832:--

The British Museum; The General Post Office; The State Paper Office; Whitehall Chapel; Westminster Hall; The National Gallery; The New Front of Buckingham Palace; The Museum of Economic Geology; The New Money Order Office (St. Martin’s-le-Grand); The Royal Pavilion at Brighton; St. Katherine’s Hospital, Regent’s Park; The Lodges and Gateways in the Parks; Kensington Palace; Temporary Houses of Parliament; Chapel Royal, St. James’s; The Courts of Law, &c. &c.

In some of these instances the architects were also relieved of the
measuring, making up accounts, &c. It appears, therefore, that
payment at the rate of 5 per cent. to the architects of all public
buildings, has invariably been the rule of the Board of Works
since the year 1832; and that prior to that date the same rule
prevailed, except in respect of those buildings which were carried
into effect under the direction of those architects who were for a
time attached to the Board, who received 3 per cent., for the
reasons already mentioned.

With reference to the additions and alterations made under the
direction of Mr. Nash, at Buckingham Palace, and the subsequent
alterations under Mr. Blore, at the same building; the remuneration
received by those two gentlemen was, not only at the rate of 5 per
cent. but they were also relieved from the labour, cost, and
responsibility as to measuring, &c.

As to the works at Windsor Castle, Sir Jeffrey Wyattville was not
only paid at the rate of 5 per cent., but he also had the same
relief afforded to him as to measuring, &c.; which circumstance,
and not the payment to him of 5 per cent. as supposed by their
Lordships, was, as appears by a Treasury Minute of the 6th October,
1826, considered to be an equivalent for his journeys and some
other extras usually charged by architects. Notwithstanding,
however, this arrangement in lieu of a charge for journeys, Sir
Jeffrey had also the advantage of having a residence assigned to
him in the Castle free of charge, during the whole of the time he
was employed upon the works of that building. In short, the
payments made to the architects of the two above-mentioned works,
together with the immunities and advantages which they enjoyed,
constituted a remuneration fully equal to 7 per cent.

With respect to my own case, as regards the New Palace at
Westminster, I have not only performed all the professional duties,
which Sir Jeffrey Wyattville and Mr. Nash performed in respect of
Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace, but I have in addition been
called upon to take upon myself the labour and responsibility of
making contracts, forming elaborate schedules of prices, measuring,
and making up accounts amounting to nearly a million and a half of
money, and of adjusting disputed claims to a considerable extent,
from which onerous duties they were altogether exempt; and I have
had at least as great, if not much greater, difficulties than they
had to contend with in carrying into effect the works at the New
Palace at Westminster, owing to the necessity of forming an
artificial foundation in the river; the limited clearances from
time to time of the site; the necessity of keeping up old
buildings, often a work of much difficulty and danger, and
constantly adding temporary accommodation, so that the sittings of
Parliament might not be interrupted; the interferences with the
works by Parliamentary Committees and other authorities, involving
numerous alterations and delays; and the impossibility, in
consequence of spending upon an average more than about 90,000_l._
per annum, by which the works have now been in hand more than 11
years beyond the time originally assumed for their completion.

With reference to the measuring and making up accounts, &c., I beg
to state that the mere reimbursement of my expenses, as proposed by
their Lordships, would be no remuneration whatever to me for the
share which I have personally taken, and the responsibility which I
have incurred in that important portion of my duty.

In my letter to the New Palace Commissioners of the 6th February,
1849, which has been laid before Parliament, and to which letter,
as it touches generally upon the prominent points of my case, I beg
most respectfully to direct the attention of the Lords
Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury, I enumerated the extra
duties which have devolved upon me in consequence of my position as
the architect of the New Palace, and which are not included in the
ordinary remuneration of an architect. I have only to add to what I
have therein stated, that the difficulties in acting with Dr. Reid
were imposed upon me after the original design and construction had
been matured and exemplified in all requisite drawings, &c., and
the works had been actually commenced; and that the same
difficulties have continued in a greater or less degree up to
within about the last 18 months; and, as a further illustration of
the extra labours to which I have adverted in that letter in
respect of designing and re-designing each department of the New
Palace successively, I may mention that with reference to that
large portion of the building now in hand in Old Palace Yard,
designs have been made and working drawings prepared no less than
four times before the works were commenced, in consequence of the
ever-varying directions of the chiefs of the department which is
therein contained.

As regards Mr. Pugin, whose services are alluded to in your letter,
their Lordships are altogether under an erroneous impression. The
salary paid to that gentleman was not for any duties that usually
devolve upon the architect in respect of designs, which designs
have all emanated from myself, but for taking the charge and
direction of the men employed by the Government in the wood-carving
department, for which office he was pre-eminently qualified, not
only on account of his knowledge of decorative art, but practically
on account of the experience which he had previously acquired in
following, at one period of his life, wood-carving as a business. A
similar arrangement was made in respect of the stone-carving, which
is also executed by workmen employed by the Government, by which a
like appointment was conferred upon Mr. Thomas, who is still at the
head of that department. Their Lordships will therefore perceive,
that it would be manifestly unjust to make any reduction, as
proposed, in my remuneration in respect of the salaries paid to the
executive chiefs of either of these departments.

Their Lordships advert to the great increase of expenditure beyond
the original estimate, and the circumstances under which such
increase has from time to time taken place as, apparently, an
element in the consideration of my claim; but I would most
respectfully submit that the increase adverted to cannot fairly
affect the amount of my remuneration, inasmuch as it has brought
upon me more than a full and proportionate amount of extra labour,
anxiety, and responsibility, and has been occasioned by
circumstances beyond my control, as set forth in a Report of a
Committee of the House of Commons in 1844, and subsequently by the
New Palace Commissioners, in a letter addressed by them to the
Treasury on the 15th June, 1849.

When, therefore, the difficulties which I have had to encounter
for nearly 20 years, in conducting the great work at Westminster to
its present state, are borne in mind, and it is considered that I
have devoted, almost exclusively, the best part of my life to that
work, and that in consequence of being its architect I have
experienced the loss of nearly the whole of a lucrative private
practice; that the invariable rule of the Board of Works has been
to pay all architects at least 5 per cent., or in the same ratio,
according to the duties which they have been required to discharge;
and more especially when it is considered that the offer of
remuneration now made to me for designing and carrying into effect
the New Palace at Westminster, under all the circumstances and
disadvantages already adverted to, does not, owing to the length of
time during which the works have been in hand, exceed, after
deducting my expenses, the sum of 1500_l._ per annum, I cannot
doubt but that the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury
will, upon a review of all the circumstances adverted to, admit
that such an offer is very far short of meeting the justice of the
case; and that with reference to its merits and to the precedents
established, particularly in respect of the works of Windsor Castle
and Buckingham Palace, &c., I am most fairly and justly entitled to
at least the accustomed remuneration of the profession of 5 per
cent., including the measuring, &c., and an allowance for extra
services, with such interest as may be due to me upon deferred
payments, for designing and carrying into effect, under very
peculiar and difficult circumstances, the largest, the most
elaborate in its design and details, and the most important
building in modern times.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) CHARLES BARRY.

(_d_). LETTER OF J. M. WHITE, ESQ., JULY, 1855.

From J. M. WHITE, ESQ., to JAMES WILSON, ESQ., M.P.

10, Whitehall Place, 14 July, 1855.

_Sir Charles Barry’s Claims._

SIR,--Owing to Sir Charles’s absence in Paris, I have not been able
to obtain his final reply on the subject of these claims till this
morning. I explained the purport of my interview with you last
Saturday, when you stated that your offer was limited to the
written paper which you read to me, and of which you had previously
furnished me with a copy. The terms of this paper are as follows:--

“PAST ACCOUNTS.

“Commission on works to which commission is applicable, 3 per cent.

“Amount to 2nd October, 1854, 1,506,845_l._

“Commission for measurement on the cost of works to which
measurement applies, 1 per cent.

“These commissions to cover all questions of claims of any kind in respect to the Houses of Parliament.

“FUTURE EXPENDITURE.

“Commission on works performed, 3 per cent.

“Commission for measurement on all expenditure to which measurement
is applicable, 1 per cent.

“Treasury, 26 May, 1855.

“FUTURE.

“To prevent misunderstanding in future, Sir C. Barry is to order no
furniture, &c., except under an authority through the Board of
Works from the Treasury.”[123]

To these terms I objected that they did not cover a very large
amount of services relating to the Houses of Parliament, but not
leading to expenditure; and further, there was another claim for
interest on outlay, and on deferred payments, and generally,
assuming the rates of commission were of the amounts offered by
you, I considered that they ought to be on the amount expended,
past and future. To your remark, “that the claim for extra services
could not be of large amount, and hence you considered it was
covered by the commission offered,” and that the claim for interest
you could not admit in any way, I replied first, that the services
were very considerable, in corroboration of which I now beg to
forward a rough statement of them. And I feel I am justified in
adhering to this part of the claim, which I fully believe would
extend to a sum of at least 10,000_l._ For you will have the
goodness to bear in mind that these claims run over nearly twenty
years, that they have been the subject of inquiry by no less than
seven Committees of the House of Commons, besides two official
references relating to Dr. Reid’s plans of ventilation (exclusive
of that relating to his final claims, which has been duly met), and
that in every case Sir C. Barry has acted with full sanction and
authority.

I put forward this claim therefore with perfect confidence, because
had it been an ordinary case between an independent architect and
an ordinary employer, the claim could be supported fully on a
_quantum meruit_; and why an independent architect like Sir C.
Barry should not have at least the same payment from the Government
I am wholly at a loss to understand.

The claim for interest, if worked out in detail, would amount at
least to as much as the other class of claims. You will recollect
that I pointed out, in reference to the 25,000_l._ alluded to in
Lord Duncannon’s offer, Sir Charles, instead of being paid in six
years as proposed, was not paid in twelve; and even in the
measuring, to which your offer of 1 per cent. extends, he is
actually in advance from 11,000_l._ to 12,000_l._, and his other
outlay, especially in more remote years, has been in large advance
from time to time, independently of the balance now due to him, and
the sacrifice he is willing to make if a final settlement be now
made. It is true that advances are almost incidental to cases of
this kind, and that, if disputes arise, it is an inconvenience
which must often be shared between the disputing parties; but such
incidents are covered and the inconvenience met by adhering to the
customary rules and amount of remuneration, which in works like
these is 5 per cent., as claimed by Sir C. Barry. That amount being
departed from, the present claim has a substance and a reality
about it calling for full and fair consideration from the
Government. And finally, on the main point of the commission, I
must again advert to the following facts:--

1st. That the Board of Woods and Works in the first instance
themselves added 5 per cent. as due to the architect. This had all
the effect of a legal contract, if not disturbed by subsequent
proceedings.

2nd. Lord Duncannon’s offer of 25,000_l._ was made on the original
estimate, coupled with the condition of the work being completed in
six years, and other terms, not one of which has been kept. The
works have nearly reached three times their amount, and have
extended over three times the stipulated period. The offer itself
was also acceded to under protest, and in fact has never had a
legal existence.

3rd. Hence Sir C. Barry has either a right to fall back on the
original estimate, or on the custom. Both of these are 5 per cent.,
including the measuring and taking out quantities; and by way of
illustration I have already referred to the British Museum, and to
Dover Harbour; the latter being mere plummet and line work, and
sinking square blocks of stone, whilst Sir Charles has in many
cases to make, it may be, even one thousand working drawings for
parts of the vast and elaborate work he has in hand.

But, as acting on his behalf with a view to a settlement, and not a
perpetuation of these disputed claims, I now beg to offer as a
counter proposition to your own--

1st. To accept 3 per cent. as architect’s commission on all
certified works, taking the present amount as stated in your offer.

2nd. To accept 1 per cent. for quantities and measurement on the
like amount.

3rd. The same commissions respectively on all future certified
works.

4th. To refer the claims for extra works to some eminent person,
who can hear such evidence as either the Government or Sir Charles
may adduce in support of their respective views.

5th. The same referee to decide the question of interest; or

6th. A specific sum to be at once received as a closing of all
claims for such services, and interest to the present day.

As to the referee, I would name by way of illustration Sir John
Patteson, Sir Edward Ryan, or Mr. J. Lefevre, or any other of like
standing.

These points I have severed in order as far as possible to meet the
views already discussed in personal conference. But as a whole I
can only say, in conclusion, as I have said before, that Sir C.
Barry is willing to submit the whole question to a reference of
this kind, and to abide the result. He is prepared to justify his
claim to 5 per cent. by his original engagement and the custom; to
vouch for all he has done by showing he has never acted without
full authority; and if anything be needed to support his views, he
finds it in the attack which has been made on him, and the way in
which, up to the present discussion, what he believes to have been
his just and reasonable claims have been resisted by the successive
Governments with whom he has had to deal.

I will wait on you for your reply to this suggestion, and beg to
subscribe myself,

Yours, &c.,

(Signed) JOHN MEADOWS WHITE.

(_e_). TREASURY MINUTE OF JANUARY 29TH, 1856.

My Lords advert to their minute of the 6th February, 1854, in reference to the claims of Sir Charles Barry, as architect of the new Houses of Parliament.

By that minute my Lords arrived at the opinion that a commission of 3 per cent. upon the cost of the building already incurred would be a fair and liberal remuneration to Sir Charles Barry, and that the same rate of commission should be allowed on the future expenditure.

My Lords, however, reserved for further consideration a claim which had been made for the payment for certain services performed by the late Mr. Pugin, upon which, as well as with regard to the question of measurement of works, past and future, my Lords called for a Report from the Board of Works. My Lords also requested to be informed of the exact cost of the buildings up to the latest date then ascertainable, and of the amount of moneys which from time to time had been paid to Sir Charles Barry.

From the Report of the Board of Works it appears that up to the 2nd of October, 1853, the cost of the building amounted to 1,506,845_l._ 10_s._, but with regard to which the Board of Works reports that works to the amount of 14,439_l._ were not strictly subject to commission. They also report, that up to that date Sir Charles Barry had received payments on account of commission, amounting in all to 44,735_l._ 3_s._ 9_d._

With regard to measurements, it appears by the same Report that Sir Charles Barry had paid out of pocket the sum of 11,457_l._ 18_s._ 10_d._ for that work, and that he had employed, in a portion of that duty, officers of the Board of Works, but who had been paid extra for such services. From explanations made, my Lords arrived at the conclusion that the moneys paid to Mr. Pugin should be allowed as extras. The Report of the Board of Works referred to, dated the 22nd January, 1855, however, brought before this Board several new claims upon the part of Sir Charles Barry for extra remuneration over and above his commission, but which appeared to my Lords to be generally of a nature which were covered by the commission of 3 per cent. upon the outlay.

Mr. Wilson now states to the Board that, at the instance of Sir Charles Barry, Mr. Meadows White, as his friend, sought several interviews with him for the purpose of endeavouring to come to a settlement in respect to the numerous questions in dispute.

A list of Sir Charles Barry’s claims for extra payment was put in by Mr. White, and consisted of:--

1. Services for plans in connexion with some contemplated
arrangements in the new building for the deposit of Public Records.

2. Services in assisting and advising the Fine Arts Commission in
respect to arrangements to be made in the Houses of Parliament.

3. Services in respect to warming and ventilating the Houses of
Parliament.

4. Returns to Parliament, and attendance on Parliamentary
Committees.

5. Other services in respect to warming and ventilating.

6. For directions to workmen, &c., in the wood and stone carving
departments.

7. For purchase of stock on behalf of Government.

8. For procuring casts from the best examples of mediæval carving,
&c.

9. For extra designs after the original plans were made.

10. For miscellaneous services, resisting unfair claims of
contractors, &c.

It appears to my Lords, that with the exception of any charge which Sir Charles Barry may be able to show he is entitled to for conducting the ventilation and lighting of the houses of Parliament, all the other charges were fairly to be included in the commission of the architect.

Looking, however, at the question as a whole, and desirous to put an end to these long disputed points, and after having consulted the Board of Works, the following offer was made to Mr. White, as acting for Sir C. Barry, on the 26th of May last, with a view finally to settle all questions as to commission, measurement, and all other claims, up to the 2nd of October, 1853, to which date the closed accounts extended.

1st. That a commission of 3 per cent. should be allowed on the
entire outlay of 1,506,845_l._, up to the 2nd of October, 1853.

2nd. That a remuneration for measurement upon the whole of the
works included in that outlay should be paid at the rate of 1 per
cent.

3rd. That these commissions should cover all demands of every kind
whatsoever for the past, the services for warming, lighting, and
ventilating alone excepted, which should be dealt with separately,
and upon their own merits.

4th. That the remuneration of Sir Charles Barry for the future
should be fixed at

Three per cent. commission on the outlay as architect, and 1 per
cent. for measurement upon all works to which measurement applies;
and that no furniture, &c. should in future be furnished by Sir C.
Barry except by the special order of the Treasury.

After numerous further interviews and discussions with Mr. White, that gentleman, on the part of Sir Charles Barry, declined the terms of settlement thus offered, and pressed again the claims for the extra services performed.

My Lords having again referred Sir C. Barry’s claims for a report to the Board of Works, and having very carefully reviewed the whole case, continue to be of opinion that the terms herein stated are not only fair but liberal; that they include all remuneration to which Sir C. Barry is justly entitled for the services he has performed, and that their Lordships could not extend the same consistently with their duty to the public.

Considering, moreover, that this matter has gone on for nearly twenty years without any distinct understanding being arrived at, notwithstanding the efforts of every successive Board of Treasury to do so, my Lords are of opinion that it is inconsistent with the public interests that it should be any longer delayed; and they therefore, as far as they are concerned, must record these terms as their final decision upon the questions at issue. They are pleased, consequently, to direct that no further payment be made on account until a final settlement of the past, and an agreement as to the future, are concluded.

Let a copy of this Minute be forwarded to Sir Charles Barry, and to the Board of Works.

(_f_). REPLY OF SIR C. BARRY OF FEBRUARY, 1856.

From SIR CHARLES BARRY to JAMES WILSON, Esq., M.P.

Old Palace Yard, 9 February, 1856.

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.

With respect to the decision recorded in their Lordships’ Minute, I
regret extremely that I cannot consider it to be worthy of the
character which their Lordships assign to it, as being either fair
or liberal, for the following reasons:--

1st. Because it appears to be founded upon reports and statements
upon which I have not been furnished with the means of making any
reply or observations.

2ndly. Because the remuneration proposed is at variance with the
long-established custom of my profession, and is far from adequate,
when the elaboration of the work upon which I am engaged, and the
extraordinary difficulties and disadvantages which have attended
its progress, are duly considered.

3rdly. Because it is also at variance with all past and present
practice, in respect of the rate of professional remuneration paid
by the Government for all other architectural and engineering works
of the country.

4thly. Because it deprives me, not only of all remuneration
whatever for many extra services, forming no part of my duties as
the architect of the New Palace at Westminster, but also of the
repayment of a considerable sum of money which I have disbursed on
account of them; and,

Lastly. Because the several questions at issue, both those which
are strictly professional as well as those which are of a legal
character, can only, in my opinion, be fairly solved upon evidence
before an arbitrator of high standing, such as those whom I have
ventured to propose for the purpose, by whose decision I should be
perfectly wiling to abide.

I remain, &c.,

(Signed) CHARLES BARRY.

(_g_). CONCLUSION OF TREASURY MINUTE OF JULY, 1856.

My Lords can arrive at no other conclusion on this part of the
question than that Sir Charles Barry has failed altogether to
establish his position, that the remuneration of 25,000_l._ awarded
to him in 1838, amounted to 4 per cent. on the estimate then before
the Board of Woods, &c.

My Lords now advert to the correspondence which passed in the
following year on the subject.

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.

Three points are evident from this letter. First, that Sir Charles
Barry accepted the proposed sum after a distinct refusal of
explanation regarding the principle on which it was proposed.
Secondly, that he was well aware at the time that it was far short
of the customary remuneration to architects; and thirdly, that he
also well understood that it was intended as the whole remuneration
which he was to receive for the _superintendence, direction, and
completion of the intended edifice_.

It is therefore too late for him now to raise questions regarding
the principle on which the recommendation of the Board of Works in
1839 was based, and to found claims on the supposition that that
Board had in view the payment to him of an amount equivalent to the
customary remuneration of architects, when the only reservation
contained in his letter of the 22nd April, 1839, was founded on the
admitted fact that the proffered sum was considerably less than
such an amount.

On reconsidering the whole circumstances, the only doubt which my
Lords entertain is, whether they have not taken too liberal a view
of the considerations by which the Board of Woods, &c. were
influenced when they recommended the payment of the fixed sum of
25,000_l._; and whether, especially in admitting Sir Charles
Barry’s claim to the payment of the expense of measuring, they have
not gone beyond the intentions of the arrangement of 1839.

My Lords have, however, no disposition now to re-open this
question, and they are prepared to give effect to the arrangement
proposed in their Minute of the 29th January last. With this view
they proceed to consider the Report of the First Commissioner of
Works, of the 11th April last, regarding the two points which were
reserved in that Minute for future settlement, viz.:--

1st. The amount of remuneration for services rendered in the
warming, lighting, and ventilating arrangements connected with the
New Palace.

2nd. The works upon which he should hereafter be allowed the
commission of 1 per cent. on measuring.

On these two points the First Commissioner has made the following
suggestions:--

“As to the first point, I am of opinion that Sir C. Barry is
entitled to receive, as a remuneration for his services under that
head, a payment of 4,925_l._; and I arrive at this amount by
allowing him 300_l._ per annum from January 1840 to April 1847, in
respect of the preparation of plans and estimates for the various
schemes suggested by Dr. Reid, which were either abandoned or
greatly modified previously to carrying into effect the existing
arrangements, and 500_l._ per annum from April 1847 to November
1852, for a continuance of the same duties, and also for taking
charge of the warming, ventilating, and lighting apparatus
throughout the entire building, with the exception of the House of
Commons.

“Upon the second point, I am of opinion that an allowance for
measurement of 1 per cent. should, for the future, be made only
upon such accounts as require the services of a surveyor for their
preparation, unless the architect should be authorised in writing
by the First Commissioner of this Board, and with the approval of
your Lordships’ Board, to make any special charge for special
services so authorised.”

My Lords concur in these recommendations, and desire that the First
Commissioner of Works will govern himself thereby. They will be
prepared, in compliance therewith, to direct the issue to Sir
Charles Barry of 4,925_l._, in full satisfaction of his claim for
services connected with the warming, lighting and ventilating
arrangements, and on the understanding that the whole principle of
remuneration for his services is now finally settled, as defined by
the Minute of 29th January last, and the further directions now
given, and that in order to prevent any misapprehension as to the
future, Sir Charles Barry will enter into an undertaking with the
Board of Works to complete the buildings for the rate of commission
and remuneration for measurement therein provided for.

In bringing this matter to a conclusion, my Lords feel it right to
observe, with reference to statements which Sir Charles Barry has
advanced in contravention of the grounds of the decision of this
Board, that when their Lordships agreed to a payment being made to
him at the rate of 1 per cent. for measuring, they had before them
a report from the Board of Works, from which it appeared that, if
the measuring were conducted under the direction of that Board, the
remuneration to professional measurers for the work would be made
“by a commission varying from one-half to three-quarters per cent.”
Their Lordships therefore consider that in allowing him 1 per cent.
he will be afforded ample remuneration for any duties imposed upon
him personally in connexion with the service of measuring. Their
Lordships have also to observe that the principle proposed by the
Board of Works, that the allowance for measuring should be made
only on such accounts as require the services of a surveyor for
their preparation, except under special circumstances, is not only
right as respects works executed subsequently to the 2nd October,
1853, but would in strictness be applicable to past works. Their
Lordships therefore feel that, in allowing him remuneration at the
rate of 1 per cent. for measuring on the gross expenditure of
1,508,174_l._ on account of works certified by him up to the 2nd
October, 1854, they will have conceded payments to him considerably
exceeding the sum to which he would have been entitled for the mere
duty of measuring, and that that sum will afford full remuneration
for all the extra services referred to in the Minute of this Board
of 29th January last, excepting only those connected with services
for warming, lighting, and ventilating, for which a special payment
is now directed.

Their Lordships have before them a certified statement prepared in
the Office of Works, from which it appears that the proportion of
the said expenditure of 1,508,174_l._, which represent works which
would not require the services of a measurer, is 215,000_l._ Sir
Charles Barry will receive under the arrangement sanctioned by this
Board 1 per cent. on the latter sum, being 2,150_l._ above the
amount to which he would be properly entitled for the actual
service of measuring, and they consider that a payment of that
amount will afford him ample remuneration for all the undefined
extra services referred to.

Transmit copy of this Minute to Sir Charles Barry for his
information.

Transmit also copy thereof to the First Commissioner of Works for
his information and guidance.

HANG Whitehall Treasury Chambers, July, 1856.

(_h._) BRIEF REMARKS BY SIR C. BARRY, 1856.

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.

6. Because of the order contained in their Lordships’ Minute of the
29th of January, 1856, for withholding all further payments to the
architect until he consented to a settlement upon their own terms,
although by such terms it is admitted that a balance is due to him
of 20,000_l._, and although a further sum on account of his claims
is included in the vote for the current year.

And finally, because of their Lordships’ refusal hitherto of all
offers that have been made by the architect of a reference of his
claims to arbitration, which, it is obvious, is the only just mode
of arriving at an impartial decision in all cases of difference,
where both parties only wish for what is fair and reasonable.

(D.)

LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS

TO

THE MEMORIAL STATUE.

[I CANNOT refuse myself the pleasure of recording the names of those, who thus did honour to my father’s memory.--A. B.]

* * * * *

£ _s._ _d._ Ainslie, C., Esq. 3 3 0 Angell, S., Esq. 5 5 0 Ashpitel, A., Esq. 3 3 0 Banks, R. R., Esq. 10 10 0 Barr, E., Esq. 1 1 0 Barry, J., Esq. 20 0 0 Bayne, R., Esq. 1 1 0 Bell, Jas., Esq. 3 3 0 Bell, John, Esq. 1 1 0 Bellamy, T., Esq. 5 5 0 Booth, W. J., Esq. 2 2 0 Boulnois, W. A., Esq. 1 1 0 Boxall, W., Esq., R.A. 2 2 0 Brakspear, W. H., Esq. 2 2 0 Brandon, D., Esq. 5 5 0 Brodrick, Cuthbert, Esq. 5 0 0 Browne, J. H., Esq. 2 2 0 Bryce, D., Esq. 3 3 0 Bunning, J. B., Esq. 3 3 0 Burton, A., Esq. 1 1 0 Burton, D., Esq. 3 3 0 Carlisle, The Earl of, K .G. 10 0 0 Chalk, J., Esq. 1 1 0 Chatwin, J. A., Esq. 2 2 0 Clarke, G. S., Esq. 10 10 0 Clarke, Joseph, Esq. 1 1 0 Clutton, H., Esq. 2 2 0 Cockerell, C. R., Esq., R.A. (Trustee) 10 10 0 Cole, J. J., Esq. 2 12 6 Cooke, E. W., Esq., R.A. 2 2 0 Cowper, Rt. Hon. W. F., M.P. (Trustee) 10 0 0 Crace, J. G., Esq. 10 10 0 Cubitt and Co., Messrs. W. 5 5 0 Currey, H., Esq. 2 2 0 Cust, The Hon. Sir E., K.C.H. (Trustee) 10 10 0 Cuthell, A., Esq. 5 5 0 Dangerfield, H., Esq. 1 1 0 Darbishire, H. A., Esq. 1 1 0 Davies, J., Esq. 1 1 0 St. Pauls, The Dean of 5 0 0 De Ville, L., Esq. 2 2 0 Donaldson, T. L., Esq. 10 10 0 Eastlake, Sir C. L., P.R.A. (Trustee) 10 10 0 Edmeston, J., Esq. 1 1 0 Ferrey, B., Esq. 3 3 0 Feversham, Rt. Hon. Lord 10 10 0 Francis, Messrs. F. & H. 1 1 0 Fraser, J. W., Esq. 2 2 0 Friend, An Humble 1 1 0 Garling, H., Esq. 5 5 0 Gassiott, J. P., Esq. 10 10 0 Gibson, J., Esq. 10 10 0 Glyn, G. Carr, Esq., M.P. 1 1 0 Glyn, G. Grenfell, Esq., M.P. 1 1 0 Godwin, G., Esq. 3 3 0 Good, J. H., Esq. 1 1 0 Goodridge, A. S., Esq. 1 1 0 Goodridge, H. E., Esq. 1 1 0 Grissell, T., Esq. 21 0 0 Groves, F. H., Esq. 0 10 0 Gye, F., Esq. 5 5 0 Hardwick, P., Esq., R.A. 5 5 0 Hardwick, P. C., Esq. 5 5 0 Hawkes, W., Esq. 10 0 0 Hawkshaw, J., Esq. 10 10 0 Hayward, C. F., Esq. 1 0 0 Hayward, John, Esq. 10 0 0 Haywood, W., Esq. 1 1 0 Herbert, W., Esq. 5 5 0 Hesketh, R., Esq. 2 2 0 Hirst, J. H., Esq. 1 1 0 Holmes, E. N., Esq. 1 1 0 Hope, A. J. B. Beresford, Esq. 10 0 0 Humbert, A. J., Esq. 2 2 0 Hunt, H. A., Esq. 50 0 0 I’Anson, E., Esq. 3 3 0 Inman, W. S., Esq. 1 1 0 James, J., Esq. 5 5 0 Jay, J., Esq. 5 5 0 Jeakes, Messrs. 3 3 0 Jennings, J., Esq. 1 1 0 Jones, Owen, Esq. 5 5 0 Judge & Winstanley, Messrs. 2 2 0 Kendall, H. E., Esq. 1 1 0 Kendall, H. E., Jun., Esq. 1 1 0 Kennedy, G. P., Esq. 5 5 0 Kerr, R., Esq. 1 1 0 Knowles, J. T., Esq. 5 5 0 Knowles, J. T., Jun., Esq. 1 1 0 Knowles, G., Esq. 1 1 0 Lansdowne, The Marquis of, K.G. 10 0 0 Lawrence, C. B. 1 1 0 Lawrie, W. 0 7 0 Leicester, G. O., Esq. 1 1 0 Leslie & Whitely, Messrs. 1 3 0 Lewis, T. Hayter, Esq. 3 3 0 Lucas, Messrs. 100 0 0 M’Clean, J. R., Esq. 5 5 0 Maclise, D., Esq., R.A. 5 5 0 Mair, G. J. J., Esq. 1 1 0 Marochetti, Baron, A.R.A. 5 5 0 Martineau, E. H., Esq. 1 1 0 Marshall, W. Calder, Esq., R.A. 1 1 0 Mason, W. A., Esq. 1 1 0 Mayhew, C., Esq. 3 3 0 Middleton, Lady 20 0 0 Mocatta, D., Esq. 5 5 0 Morgan, G., Esq. 3 3 0 Murchison, Sir R. 10 10 0 Murray, J., Esq. 5 5 0 Nash, Edwin, Esq. 1 1 0 Nelson, Charles C., Esq. (Hon. Sec.) 3 3 0 Newcastle, the Duke of, K.G. 20 0 0 Newton, H. R., Esq. 1 1 0 Norton, J., Esq. 5 5 0 Parris, R., Esq. 5 5 0 Parsons, H., Esq. 1 1 0 Pearce, M., Esq. 1 1 0 Pennethorne, J., Esq. 3 3 0 Penrose, F. C., Esq. 1 1 0 Peto, Sir Morton, Bart., M.P. 21 0 0 Pickersgill, F. R., Esq., R.A. 5 5 0 Porter, F. W., Esq. 1 1 0 Poynter, A., Esq. 1 1 0 Prichard & Seddon, Messrs. 3 3 0 Pye, K. J., Esq. 2 2 0 Reeks, C. F., Esq. 1 1 0 Richardson, C. J., Esq. 1 1 0 Roberts, D., Esq., R.A. 5 5 0 Roberts, H., Esq. 1 0 0 Robins, E. C., Esq. 1 1 0 Rowsell, Rev. T. J. 1 1 0 Scott, G. Gilbert, Esq., R.A. 5 5 0 Shuttleworth, Sir J. K., Bart. 5 5 0 Slater, W., Esq. 1 1 0 Smart, Sir G. 2 2 0 Smirke, Sydney, Esq., R.A. 5 5 0 Smith, C. H., Esq. 1 1 0 Smith, Montagu, Esq., Q.C. 3 3 0 Smith, P. G., Esq. 1 1 0 Soden, J. R., Esq. 1 1 0 Spiers, R. P., Esq. 1 1 0 Stanley, Lord, M.P. 10 10 0 Strudwick, J. H., Esq. 5 5 0 Thompson, J. Esq. 1 1 0 Tite, W., Esq., F.R.S., M.P. (Trustee) 10 10 0 Tress, R., Esq. 2 2 0 Turner, J., Esq. 1 1 0 Tweedie, Dr. 10 10 0 Vulliamy, G., Esq. 2 2 0 Ware, C. N. Cumberlege, Esq. 5 5 0 Waring, J. B., Esq. 1 1 0 Weightman, J. G., Esq. 2 2 0 Whitely, H., Esq. 5 5 0 Wilkinson, Sir Gardner 3 0 0 Wilson, F. R., Esq. 2 2 0 Wolfe, J. L., Esq. 200 0 0 Wolfe, L. M., Esq. 20 0 0 Woodthorpe, E., Esq. 1 1 0 Workmen, (Clapham) 2 14 6 Wright, W., Esq. 2 2 0 Wyatt, M. Digby, Esq. (Hon. Sec.) 3 3 0 Wyatt, T. H., Esq. 5 5 0

THE END.

LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET, AND CHARING CROSS.

PLAN OF SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS AND NEW STREETS IN, AND NEAR, WESTMINSTER IN REFERENCE TO THE NEW PALACE OF WESTMINSTER, THE CONCENTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OFFICES, AND THE TREATMENT OF THE THAMES EMBANKMENT. EXHIBITED IN THE YEAR 1857, AT WESTMINSTER HALL.

Maclure, Macdonald & Macgregor Lith.ᵀᴮ to the Queen, 17ᴮ. Great George Sᵀ. Westminster.

The Dark Hatching shews Public and important Buildings as now existing, thus

The Light Hatching outlined shews the new Streets and Buildings proposed along them, thus

The Thick Blue Edging shews the line of the existing Banks on each side of the River.]

* * * * *

ALBEMARLE STREET, LONDON, _October, 1866_.

MR. MURRAY’S

GENERAL LIST OF WORKS.

ALBERT’S (THE PRINCE) SPEECHES AND ADDRESSES ON PUBLIC OCCASIONS:
with an Introduction giving some Outlines of his Character.
Portrait. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._; or _Popular Edition_. Portrait. Fcap.
8vo, 1_s._

ABBOTT’S (REV. J.) Philip Musgrave; or, Memoirs of a Church of
England Missionary in the North American Colonies. Post 8vo. 2_s._

ABERCROMBIE’S (JOHN) Enquiries concerning the Intellectual Powers
and the Investigation of Truth. _14th Edition._ Fcap. 8vo. 6_s._
6_d._

---- Philosophy of the Moral Feelings. _13th Edition._ Fcap. 8vo.
4_s._

ACLAND’S (REV. CHARLES) Popular Account of the Manners and Customs
of India. Post 8vo. 2_s._