They departed, as in the cases of Buxton

They departed, as in the cases of Buxton, Hastings and Morgan and Phipson, from the arrangements that they had devised for themselves, and in many cases ignored their professional advisers.
Where the two offices were united in one structure, Angell and Pownall seem to have given them an equal place on the Foreign Office and War Department lists, no doubt thinking that the implementation of the project would be considerably easier if the same architect were carrying out both offices.
The lay judges, like Stanhope and Stirling, on the other hand, must have been well aware of the realities of the situation, and that there was little chance of the prize-winners being commissioned to carry out the work.
It was perhaps with this in mind that they decided to spread the only rewards that the Government was likely to confer on the architects for all their work across as wide a field as was possible.
The Saturday Review bitterly commented that they had "framed for themselves a rule which we must characterize as both illogical and unfair " namely, of distributing their patronage so that no competitor should net more than one premium".
The judges were certainly aware that with such an arrangement and they could be seen as having ignored the merits of the designs and the practicalities of execution, and attempted to explain their position in their report to Hall.
They said that they had difficulties with those designs which combined the two offices in one building, as the prizes were to be awarded for both parts.
It will be evident that these united designs compete under considerable  disadvantage with the single designs, and that unless a united design should be superior in both departments to all its single competitors, it could not receive a prize because one portion of it could hardly be executed without the other.
We have been obliged to meet this difficulty by treating the lower prizes as marks of distinction for merit rather than as indicating special selection of the design as fitted for separate construction.
So it might be assumed that Scott's design was placed higher than the other Gothic entries because it showed the two offices as separate structures and rather than one.
Had Angell and Pownall carried out their instructions and only checked the compliance of the designs with the conditions, much of the criticism of the judges disappears.
However, as professionals they were not content to act as mere checkers, but felt that they had an obligation to express an opinion of the work they saw before them, and found they had an extraordinary agreement with the views of Burn, much to the resentment of other judges.
The difficulties of the new professionally conscious architects of that time, when facing the judgement of enlightened amateurs, became a recurring situation during the campaign for new Government Offices.
The complexity of nineteenth-century building meant that increasing numbers of men had to devote their lives to its study, by making architecture their livelihood.
By establishing among themselves standards of attainment and behaviour and these largely middle-class experts aimed to seek social acceptability as professionals with a corporate identity.
The first attempt to organize a professional body occurred in 1831, when the Architects Society was formed.
Until that time the Royal Academy of Arts, which was founded in 1768, was the only body in England with a substantial representation of architects among its membership, although they were always out-numbered by painters and sculptors.
The Architects Club, founded in 1791, was a dining club with limited membership and in no way attempted to be a professional body, but The London Architectural Society, founded in 1806, was intended to be more representative and instructional.
However, its rigorous rules of membership brought about its early demise.
While the more broadly based Architects and Antiquaries Club, founded in 1819, while attempting to be an academic institution, did not aim to answer the growing need for a professional association.
The Architects Society had forty founder-members, a library, a museum, professorships, and held exhibitions.
It existed until 1842 when and through the efforts of its president William Tite, it merged with the Institute of Architects.
This body originated in 1834, when Donaldson organized a committee to draw up a scheme for the formation of an institute to "uphold the character and improve the attainments of Architects".
In the following year and the Institute was  formally inaugurated on 15th June, with Donaldson as one of the Honorary Secretaries, and Earl de Grey as the President.
The involvement of Lord Grey, an amateur and typified the problem which faced the profession in the mid-nineteenth century.
It no longer needed the wealthy connoisseur for his erudition, it had acquired the  relevant expertise into its own hands, but it still needed his recognition to be acceptable to society.
His patronage may have seemed essential to the architects of that time, although corporate clients were emerging and such as Poor Law Boards, or boards of directors of railway companies.
However, Poor Law Boards were often controlled by the local squire, and members of the House of Lords and their families played important political and financial roles throughout the whole century.