C'tA*sXXX.] AWARDS—MODELS ; ARCHITECTURE ; TOPOGRAPHY; DESIGNS.
6S9
Heidelberg Castle, carved iu cork. (Oldenburg, No. 1,p. 1135.)
Mr. S. Cundy, of London , for his restoration of theMonument of Philippa of Hainault, in English alabaster,from drawings by Mr. G. C. Scott. (Main Avenue West,No. GO, p. 848. Prize Medal, Class XXVII.)
Mr. T. Dunhill, of London , for his model in plaster,and other materials, of a Metropolitan Cattle Market,with abattoirs, &c. (Class VII., No. 90, p. 318.)
M. J. Lkeman, of Herne, for his model of the Nurem-berg Fountain, carved in wood. (Switzerland , No. 258,p. 1283.;*
M. J. Leeman, of Zurich , for his model of the Cathe-dral of Strasburg, executed in card. (Switzerland , No.257, p. 1282. Prize Medal, Class VII.)*
Sir. W. Stuart, of Plymouth, for a model of thePlymouth Breakwater, executed in limestone. (ClassVII., No. 28, pp. 311, 312.)
Section G. 2 .—In Topography.
The following Prize Medal was awarded in this sec-tion :—
To Mr. John* Graxtfiam, Secretary of the LiverpoolLocal Committee, for a model of the Docks and commer-cial portion of the Town of Liverpool, in various materials.(Main Avenue West, No. 95, p. 851.)
The Jury of Class XXX. abstained from examiningmodels in Anatomy , as such objects were transferred toanother Class. (Minute of May 26th, 1851.)
Designs.
The various designs for decoration, tapestry, em-broidery, mixed fabrics, &c., not having been submittedto the examination of any other Jury, the Jury of ClassXXX. appointed a Committee of their own body, which,together with members of Juries of other Classes, wereinstructed by the Royal Commissioners to report on thearticles thus overlooked. This mixed Committee havingreported accordingly, the Jury of Cla«sXXX. proceededto award the following Prize Medals:—
To MM. Berrus Brothers, of Paris , for their generalability in designs for shawls. The Jury wished, however,to guard themselves from being supposed to approve ofthe introduction of landscapes in such designs, as ex-hibited in frames Nos. I and 2. (France , No. 55,p. 1174.)
To M. J. Chkbkaux, of Paris , for his cotton andcalico prints, apart from their taste. (France , No. 1146,p. 1233.)
To M. C. E. Clerget, of Paris , for his designs gene-rally, and his exhibited works iu ornament. (France ,No.'799, p. 1219.)
To M. A. Couder, of Paris , for his Shawl Designs, andfor his skilful execution of his Designs generally, apartfrom their taste. (France , No. 1566, p. 1251.)
To the Government Head School of Design , esta-blished in London . (Fine Arts Court, No. 10, p. 821.)
The mixed Sub-Committee examined the Designs in-tended for Manufactures, exhibited by this School , directedby Messrs. J. R. Herbert, R. Redgrave, and H. J. Towns-end; the female department being superintended by Mrs.MTan. The Sub-Committee reported that in these de-signs they had observed a purity of taste, a propriety andchasteness of invention, and a well-understood adaptationof style for the several objects, which do great credit tothe directors and to their scholars. The Sub-Committee ,therefore (Mr. Redgrave, one of its members and a Jurorof Class XXX. having withdrawn), felt it to be theirduty to propose to this Jury that a Prize Medal shouldbe awarded to the Institution. They moreover recom-mended that Honourable Mention should be made ofthree of the pupils, and that six other pupils, viz., S. Ash-worth (No. 87, Class XVIII., p. 558), Florence Collins(No. 86, Class XVIII., p. 558), J. S. Ccthbert (No. 10,Class XXX., p. 821), A. Town (No. 10, Class XXX., p.
* Since the Award Book was closed, it has been ascer-tained that the two entries, Nos. 257 and 258, refer to thesame person.
821), J. Kyi> (No. 10. Class XXX., p. 821), and J. Raw-, lings (No. 10, Class XXX., p. 821), should be mentioned: with much approbation. The Jury of Class XXX., afterdue inquiry and mature deliberation, approved unani-! mously of these suggestions, and adopted the whole of| these recommendations. The names of the three pupils to| whom an Honourable Mention has been awarded will beseverally found in their proper place.
To M. E. Laroche, of Paris , for his Manufactureof Designs. (France , No. 291, p. 1190.)
To Luke Limner (Mr. Leighton), for a variety ofDesigns. (Class XVII., No. 24, p. 538.)
To Mr. Digby Wyatt, of London , for good taste gene-rally in his Designs. (Fine Arts Court, No. 30, p. 822.)
The Jury were, moreover, of opinion that the followingartists were deserving of Honourable Mention:—
Mr. W. Aldridge, a pupil of the Government Head! School of Design , for his Designs. (Fine Arts Court,
\ No. 10, p. 821.)
! M. C. Braun, of Paris , for his Designs for Calico| Prints. (France , No. 72, p. 1175.)
I Mr. John Carter, of Cray ford in Kent, for his Designsj unapplied. (P. 821.)
I M. F. Didier, of Paris , for his Designs for Shawls,j (France , No. 820, p. 1219.)
{ M. N. A. Galimaud, of Paris , for his Designs forj Painted Glass. (France , No. 228, p. 1187.)
M. Gruenthal, of Berlin , for his Patterns for BerlinWool. (Prussia, No. 166, p. 1057.)
Mr. J. K. IIarvky, of London , for his Designs forCarpets . (Class XIX., No. 197, p. 567.)
Mr. B. IIeald (Class XIX., No. 269), of the Govern-ment School of Design at Nottingham , for his LaceDesigns. (Prize Medal, Class XIX., p. 570.)
Mr. Edwin Ireland, a pupil of the Government HeadSchool of Design , for his Designs. (Fine Arts Court, No.
10, p. 821.)
Mr. J. II. Mereaux, of Paris , for his Designs for LaceManufacturers. (France , No. 631. Prize Medal, ClassXIX., p. 1208.)
M. Meynier, of Paris , for his Designs for Shawls.(France , No. 638, p. 1208.)
MM. Naze and Co., of Paris , for their Designs forCotton Prints. (France , No. 625, p. 1207 .)
M. E. Picard, of Rouen , for his Designs for Woollen,Cotton, and other Printing. (France , No. 347, p. 1194.)
Mr. C. P. Si.ocombe, a pupil of the Government HeadSchool of Design , for his Designs. (Fine Arts Court,No. 10, p. 821.)
Mr. G. Truefitt, of London , for his Design of awrought-iron canopied Tomb. (Fine Arts Court, No. 75,p. 824.)
*The Jury of Class XXX., having brought their laboursto a conclusion, cannot refrain from expressing their hopethat steps may be taken for rendering the Great Exhi-bition as useful after it has ceased to be, as it has provedgratifying and instructive in the course of its short exist-ence. It is the wish to see these hopes realized, thatimpels the Jury, even at the risk of overstepping thestrict limits of their functions, to submit, with greatdeference, their views on this point to the Royal Com-missioners.
■ The foundation of a permanent industrial Museum inthe heart of the metropolis of trade and industry, seemsto the Jury the logical and practical consequence of thisExhibition. It is in the “ Crystal Palace ” that the greattruth has been impressed upon ns, that art and taste arehenceforth to be considered as elements of industry andtrade, of scarcely less importance than the most powerfulmachinery. It seems also natural that this Museumshould in the first instance consist of the objects to which. the several Juries have called public attention as happy] types and models for imitation. While such a Museum,ou the one hand, would be a lasting depository of industry' and of the arts: it would, on the other, serve as the best! and easiest standard of comparison by which humani ingenuity might mark its progress, on the opening, ton‘ years hence, of a new Great Exhibition ;—it would serve' alike as a guide and as a beacon.