APPENDIX. (continued 2)

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 20,000l., 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.