The book "Faith on the March", written by A.H. Macmillan, pg 28 states:
It was right at the time of this disappointment, as Russell shows, that a permanent breach began between Barbour and Russell. Paul's words at I Corinthians 15:51, 52, were being wrongly construed, Russell had pointed out. There, in Paul's statement, "We shall not all sleep," the word sleep is not synonymous with die, though some had so understood. Rather, here sleep means state of unconsciousness of those who in death must wait for Christ's second coming to awaken them out of such sleep. Russell showed how Paul clearly meant by his words that those alive on earth when Christ returned would not need to go into such sleep of death to wait for a future awakening, but at the instant of their death they then would be "changed" or resurrected immediately, to be with Christ in heaven as spirit persons. This harmonizes with Paul's words in this same chapter, verse 36: "That which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die."
But Barbour rejected this simple explanation of Paul's words, feeling that he had to "get up something new to divert attention from the failure of the living saints to be caught away en masse." Soon afterward Barbour wrote and published in the Herald "that Christ's death was no more a settlement of the penalty of man's sins than would the sticking of a pin through the body of a fly and causing it suffering and death be considered by an earthly parent as a just settlement for misdemeanor in his child."That denial by Barbour of the basic Bible doctrine of the ransom value of Jesus' sacrifice came as a real shock to Russell. Russell, who now had been regularly contributing to the Herald, immediately wrote and published a powerful defense of the ransom. Then, in the same journal, Barbour and a few supporters continued attacking the ransom doctrine while Russell and others kept on upholding it. Herald readers were confused; it also greatly disturbed Russell. To him the ransom was the keystone, the great foundation of human hope. To attack it was to shake the basis of God's provision for reconciling sinful man to himself. However, Russell soon realized that continued wrangling would not settle the problem. He determined, therefore, to withdraw his support from the Herald, to which he himself had given new life in order to preach the good tidings of the harvest work. But just to withdraw, he saw, would not be sufficient. The ransom must be defended and the work of proclaiming our Lord's return must be continued.
I was wondering if anyone has some more background, or perhaps a link to the original article, that explains the entirety of Barbour's view? The above quote leaves a very negative impression of Barbour, and I'm sure there's more to his argument than that.