Appendix C.]
MINUTE ON AWARD OF THE COUNCIL MEDAL.
XXV
for the mere excellence of the workmanship, might properlyreceive it for a very extraordinary and original merit of thedesign applied to them. And, in like manner, though aCouncil Medal ought not to be given to a piece of Furniture,of which the principal merit was that it was well made, itmight be awarded to it if there were so much beauty in thedesign as to entitle it to great distinction as a "Work of Art.
“ The Commissioners must, however, limit themselves byobserving that they would not recognise beauty of design asa sufficient title to a Council Medal unless applied to anobject of some importance. Very great merit might hefound in the carving of an umbrella or a pipe, yet it mightbe thought improper to reward such merit with a CouncilMedal, on account of the comparative insignificance of thesubject.
“ The last observation naturally leads the Commissionersto offer some remarks upon another point on which it ispossible that doubts may arise ; namely, whether the fact ofan Exhibitor having incurred great expense in the pre-paration of an Article for exhibition should entitle him to aCouncil Metal: as, for instance, in the case of the Exhibitorsof valuable flaw products, of specimens of Manufactured Goods remarkable only for the size of thespecimens, of veryprecious Jewels, or of collections of the productions ofparticular districts. In these cases, the Commissioners aredecidedly of opinion that the mere fact of a large outlay ofmoney ought not to be regarded as entitling an Exhibitor toreceive a Council Medal, though care should, of course, betaken, that his zealous co-operation in promoting the objectsof the Exhibition, be properly noticed in the Report of theJury of his Class.
u In the foregoing remarks, the Commissioners haverepeatedly spoken of rewarding inventions and newprocesses. They think it right, therefore, to guard them-selves against being supposed to throw upon the Juries theduty of discovering whether each particular object whichthey mark for reward is actually the invention of the party
claiming the merit of it. They can conceive that, in manycases, such an investigation would, under the circumstances,be impossible. In Machinery , particularly, they presumethat the Juries will reward an important Machine withoutundertaking to pronounce whether the novelties exhibitedin its construction have been originated by the Exhibitor,or have been borrowed or adapted by him from someone else. The test of invention will be satisfied if theMachine be rewarded for its importance and ingenuity, andnot for the mere excellence of workmanship.
“ As the Commissioners have referred to the claims ofinvention, it would appear to be desirable to fix some datebeyond which invention should cease to be a claim for theCouncil Medal. It has not been made a condition in theadmission of Articles to the Exhibition that they should benew ; but it would be obviously difficult and inexpedientto discuss claims of invention made many years since. Itappears to the Commissioners that, as most EuropeanStates consider from fourteen to fifteen years a properperiod for limiting by patents the use of an invention to thediscoverer before it becomes the property of the public,this period would form a limit, beyond which the claims ofinvention should not be admitted.
“ In communicating these remarks to the Council ofChairmen, the Koyal Commissioners must again repeat thatthey arc only anxious to obviate the danger of theirpublished Decisions being misunderstood. The respon-sibility of giving effect to those Decisions must rest withthe Council of Chairmen, in whom the control of theseparate Juries, and more particularly the duty ofregulating the distribution of the Council Medal, has beenspecially vested; and the Koyal Commissioners wouldstrongly impress upon them the responsibility underwhich they lie of exercising that control with care andfirmness, according to the opinions which they may per-sonally entertain of the merits of the several cases broughtbefore them.”
Appendix D.
DEPARTMENT OP JURIES.
Dr. I,yox Playfair, F.R.S., Special Commissioner in Charge of the Department of Juries,
DEPUTIES.
John "Wilson, F.R.S.E., late Principal of the Royal Agricultural College —for Group A.—Raw Materials.Col. J. A. Lloyd, F.ll.S., Special Commissioner—for Group B. — Machinery .
George M allis— for Group C. — Textile Manvfactures.
Captain Boscawen Irbf.tson, F.R.S.— for Group D .—Metallic and Fibrous Manufactures.
Sir Stafford Xortiicote, Bart., Secretary to the Koyal Commission—for Groups E. & F .—MiscellaneousManufactures and Fine Arts.
Lieutenant Edward Ward, R.E., Secretary to the Department of Juries.
Lieutenant Crossman. R.E., ■> . . , . ^ n n
I.IECTENAST Ducase, K.E., } Assistant Secretaries to Group B.
George Wric.iit, Assistant Secretary to Groups E. and F.
Major Boyd, Interpreter.
COUNCIL OF CHAIRMEN,
A. —Raw Materials*
I. Sir Henry De La Beche , C.B., F.R.S.IT. J. Dumas.
III. Edward de Lode.
IV. Professor Owen, F.R.S.
B. — Machinery .
V. Rev. E. Moseley, M.A., F.R.S.
Va. Earl Jersey.
VII. I. K. Brunel, F.R.S.
VIII. Baron Charles Pepin.
IX. Philip Pusey , M.P., F.R.S.
X. Sir David Brewster , F.R.S.
Xa. Sir IIf.nry Bishop.
Xu. E. B. Denison, M.A.
Xc. J. H. Green.
C. — Textile Fabrics.
XT. Sir James Anderson.
XII. Professor Herrman.
XIII. G. T. Kemp.
XIV. Count Von Harracii.
XV. Herr Von IIoegaf.rden.
XVI. Hon. Col. Anson.
XVII. M. M. Van de Weyer.
XVIII. Henry Tucker.
XIX. Professor Bolley, of Switzerland .
XX. Wm. Felkin.
D. — Metallic , Vitreous, and Ceramic Manufactures.
XXI. Lord Wharsci-iffe.
XXIII. Due df. Luynes.
XXIV. Lord de Mauley.
XXV. Duke of Argyll.
E. —Miscellaneous Manufactures.
XXVI. Professor Roesner.
XXVII. Signor Benedetto Pistrucci.
XXVHT. Senor Don Joaquin Alfonso.
F . —Fine Arts.
XXX. Herr Von Yieuatin.