(b.) TREASURY MINUTE OF FEBRUARY, 1854.From the Treasury toSir Charles Barry.Treasury Chambers, 8 February, 1854.Sir,—I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury to acquaint you that my Lords have had under their consideration a letter addressed by you to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of your remuneration as architect for the New Houses of Parliament.It appears that, when these works were first undertaken the estimate for the shell of the building only was 707,104l., and that Lord Bessborough, who was at that time Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and, as such, charged with the Department of Works, agreed that the remuneration to the architect should be 25,000l., and you state that you accepted that arrangement, but under protest that it was unprofessional. I have to state that my Lords have carefully examined into the circumstances which were likely to have influenced Lord Bessborough in fixing the remuneration of the architect at that sum, and they find that, for many years prior, the rate of commission paid by the Board of Works to the most eminent architects of the day was 3 per cent. They find that the attached architects of the Board of Works, viz., Sir John Soane, Sir Robert Smirke, and Mr. John Nash, were, by Treasury Regulations, paid at the rate of 3 per cent. on the public works executed under their direction. It is true that those gentlemen had also salaries of 500l.each attached to their offices, but those salaries were understood to be a remuneration for the professional advice, which they were expected to afford to the Government, for which they received no other pay, and not as any part of their remuneration as architects for the performance of works placed under their care. On theseterms the following works were performed by those eminent architects:—New Stamp and Legacy-Duty Office, Somerset House;Military Depot, Tooley Street;New Buildings, British Museum;New Post Office;Custom House (Restoration);New Courts of Judicature, Westminster;Insolvent Debtors’ Court;Committee Rooms, House of Lords;Library and Committee Rooms, House of Commons;Whitehall Chapel (Restoration);New State Paper Office;New Royal Mews, Pimlico;King’s Stand, Ascot;And my Lords find that the only exception to this rule was as regards the New Palace at Buckingham Gate.With regard to that work, Mr. Nash was paid at the regular rate of 3 per cent. up to September, 1826, when it was raised to 5 per cent., but for what reason my Lords have not been able to ascertain.My Lords further find that the allowance made by the Board of Works to the architects unattached to their establishment has been at the rate of 3 per cent., and that the following works were executed by Mr. Burton at that rate:—New Stable Court, Westminster;New Stone House, Grenadier Guards, Westminster;Inclosing Ground, North Side, New Mews, Westminster;As an exception to that rule, Sir Jeffery Wyattville was paid 5 per cent. for the restoration of Windsor Castle, under a special agreement with the Treasury in 1826, by which he engaged not to charge for his journeys, which in those days were expensive, and some other extras usually charged by architects.Looking, then, to the rule which had been established so long in the office over which Lord Bessborough presided, and to the close proximity which the sum fixed by his Lordshipbears to the estimate then made for the mere shell of the building, and to the probable amount of the cost of such fittings as would be placed under the superintendence of the architect, my Lords can arrive at no other conclusion than that, in fixing that sum for the entire work, his Lordship did so with a view to the rate of commission usually paid by the Department, preferring to take a fixed sum rather than a commission, as is not unfrequently done, under the impression that it may avoid an extension of the works, and consequently of the cost.My Lords advert to the great increase in the expenditure upon these works, and to the circumstances under which such increase has from time to time taken place, to such an extent that the outlay up to this time is nearly double the sum originally intended. They also advert to the circumstance, that with regard to some portion of that expense connected with the internal fittings, assistance and advice other than that afforded by you has been obtained, and it appears that in this way Mr. Pugin was employed for some time at a salary of 200l.a-year.I have to apprise you that, under all the circumstances of the case, my Lords have arrived at the conclusion, that a fair and even liberal remuneration to you will be, that you should be paid at the rate of 3 per cent. upon the cost of the works which have been and may hereafter be performed under your supervision, including the fittings, &c., of the building, but subject to a deduction of the amounts which shall appear to have been paid for the assistance rendered by Mr. Pugin.My Lords have therefore requested the Board of Works to furnish this Board without delay with an exact account of the expenditure up to the 31st December, 1853, and that an account shall also be furnished of the several amounts of money which from time to time have been paid to you on account of the said works; and whatever balance shall appear to be due to you upon such an account my Lords will be prepared at once to discharge.My Lords have also desired that the Board of Works will, in the present and in every future year, include in theirannual estimates for the New Houses of Parliament a sum equal to 3 per cent. on the probable outlay of the year, as a remuneration to the architect, and they have directed that at the close of every year the value of the work performed may be accurately ascertained, and the commission of the architect punctually discharged on the principles herein laid down.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.
(b.) TREASURY MINUTE OF FEBRUARY, 1854.From the Treasury toSir Charles Barry.
Treasury Chambers, 8 February, 1854.
Sir,—I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury to acquaint you that my Lords have had under their consideration a letter addressed by you to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of your remuneration as architect for the New Houses of Parliament.
It appears that, when these works were first undertaken the estimate for the shell of the building only was 707,104l., and that Lord Bessborough, who was at that time Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and, as such, charged with the Department of Works, agreed that the remuneration to the architect should be 25,000l., and you state that you accepted that arrangement, but under protest that it was unprofessional. I have to state that my Lords have carefully examined into the circumstances which were likely to have influenced Lord Bessborough in fixing the remuneration of the architect at that sum, and they find that, for many years prior, the rate of commission paid by the Board of Works to the most eminent architects of the day was 3 per cent. They find that the attached architects of the Board of Works, viz., Sir John Soane, Sir Robert Smirke, and Mr. John Nash, were, by Treasury Regulations, paid at the rate of 3 per cent. on the public works executed under their direction. It is true that those gentlemen had also salaries of 500l.each attached to their offices, but those salaries were understood to be a remuneration for the professional advice, which they were expected to afford to the Government, for which they received no other pay, and not as any part of their remuneration as architects for the performance of works placed under their care. On theseterms the following works were performed by those eminent architects:—
And my Lords find that the only exception to this rule was as regards the New Palace at Buckingham Gate.
With regard to that work, Mr. Nash was paid at the regular rate of 3 per cent. up to September, 1826, when it was raised to 5 per cent., but for what reason my Lords have not been able to ascertain.
My Lords further find that the allowance made by the Board of Works to the architects unattached to their establishment has been at the rate of 3 per cent., and that the following works were executed by Mr. Burton at that rate:—
As an exception to that rule, Sir Jeffery Wyattville was paid 5 per cent. for the restoration of Windsor Castle, under a special agreement with the Treasury in 1826, by which he engaged not to charge for his journeys, which in those days were expensive, and some other extras usually charged by architects.
Looking, then, to the rule which had been established so long in the office over which Lord Bessborough presided, and to the close proximity which the sum fixed by his Lordshipbears to the estimate then made for the mere shell of the building, and to the probable amount of the cost of such fittings as would be placed under the superintendence of the architect, my Lords can arrive at no other conclusion than that, in fixing that sum for the entire work, his Lordship did so with a view to the rate of commission usually paid by the Department, preferring to take a fixed sum rather than a commission, as is not unfrequently done, under the impression that it may avoid an extension of the works, and consequently of the cost.
My Lords advert to the great increase in the expenditure upon these works, and to the circumstances under which such increase has from time to time taken place, to such an extent that the outlay up to this time is nearly double the sum originally intended. They also advert to the circumstance, that with regard to some portion of that expense connected with the internal fittings, assistance and advice other than that afforded by you has been obtained, and it appears that in this way Mr. Pugin was employed for some time at a salary of 200l.a-year.
I have to apprise you that, under all the circumstances of the case, my Lords have arrived at the conclusion, that a fair and even liberal remuneration to you will be, that you should be paid at the rate of 3 per cent. upon the cost of the works which have been and may hereafter be performed under your supervision, including the fittings, &c., of the building, but subject to a deduction of the amounts which shall appear to have been paid for the assistance rendered by Mr. Pugin.
My Lords have therefore requested the Board of Works to furnish this Board without delay with an exact account of the expenditure up to the 31st December, 1853, and that an account shall also be furnished of the several amounts of money which from time to time have been paid to you on account of the said works; and whatever balance shall appear to be due to you upon such an account my Lords will be prepared at once to discharge.
My Lords have also desired that the Board of Works will, in the present and in every future year, include in theirannual estimates for the New Houses of Parliament a sum equal to 3 per cent. on the probable outlay of the year, as a remuneration to the architect, and they have directed that at the close of every year the value of the work performed may be accurately ascertained, and the commission of the architect punctually discharged on the principles herein laid down.
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.FromSir C. Barryto 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 HerMajesty’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 25,000l., 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 10,000l.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 25,000l.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 itsattached 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 theBoard 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, difficultiesthan 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 90,000l.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 inhand 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 toencounter 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 1500l.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.
(c.) REPLY OF SIR C. BARRY, MARCH, 1854.FromSir C. Barryto 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 HerMajesty’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 25,000l., 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 10,000l.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 25,000l.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 itsattached 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:—
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 theBoard 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, difficultiesthan 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 90,000l.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 inhand 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 toencounter 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 1500l.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.FromJ. M. White, Esq., toJames 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:—
(d). LETTER OF J. M. WHITE, ESQ., JULY, 1855.FromJ. M. White, Esq., toJames 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, 1,506,845l.“Commission for measurement on the cost of works to which measurement applies, 1 per cent.
“Past Accounts.
“Commission on works to which commission is applicable, 3 per cent.
“Amount to 2nd October, 1854, 1,506,845l.
“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.
“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 10,000l.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 aquantum 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 25,000l.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 11,000l.to 12,000l., 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 beshared 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 25,000l.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; or6th. 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.
“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 10,000l.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 aquantum 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 25,000l.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 11,000l.to 12,000l., 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 beshared 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 25,000l.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 toSir 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 1,506,845l.10s., but with regard to which the Board of Works reports that works to the amount of 14,439l.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 44,735l.3s.9d.
With regard to measurements, it appears by the same Report that Sir Charles Barry had paid out of pocket the sum of 11,457l.18s.10d.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:—
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.
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 theyare 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.FromSir Charles BarrytoJames 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 furniturein 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.
(f). REPLY OF SIR C. BARRY OF FEBRUARY, 1856.FromSir Charles BarrytoJames 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 furniturein 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 25,000l.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 thewhole duty and labour which would devolve on the architect, and with this knowledge they stated their opinion that “the sum of 25,000l.would be a fair and liberal remuneration for the labour and responsibility to be imposed on Mr. Barry, in thesuperintendence, direction and completionof 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 thecompletionof 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, andcompletion 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 thesuperintendence, 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 25,000l.; 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 4,925l.; and I arrive at this amount by allowing him 300l.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 500l.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 4,925l., 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 CharlesBarry 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 1,508,174l.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 1,508,174l., which represent works which would not require the services of a measurer, is 215,000l.Sir Charles Barry will receive under the arrangement sanctioned by this Board 1 per cent. on the latter sum, being 2,150l.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 affordhim 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.Whitehall Treasury Chambers,July, 1856.
(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 25,000l.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 thewhole duty and labour which would devolve on the architect, and with this knowledge they stated their opinion that “the sum of 25,000l.would be a fair and liberal remuneration for the labour and responsibility to be imposed on Mr. Barry, in thesuperintendence, direction and completionof 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 thecompletionof 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, andcompletion 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 thesuperintendence, 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 25,000l.; 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 4,925l.; and I arrive at this amount by allowing him 300l.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 500l.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 4,925l., 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 CharlesBarry 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 1,508,174l.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 1,508,174l., which represent works which would not require the services of a measurer, is 215,000l.Sir Charles Barry will receive under the arrangement sanctioned by this Board 1 per cent. on the latter sum, being 2,150l.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 affordhim 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.
Whitehall Treasury Chambers,July, 1856.