20

INTRODUCTION.

Metropolis.

TheBuilding.

prietor. Tlie Commissioners were not called upon to exercise this power m asingle instance.

Although several Local Committees were formed in tne Metropolis, the func-tions of rejection and selection of articles were performed by a united action ofall the several Committees. Each Committee nominated Commissioners to repre-sent a particular department of the Exhibition, who met together to consider themerits of the individual claims lor space referred to them.

Such was the course of action by which the articles of British exhibitors wereadmitted to the Exhibition, and subjected to a preliminary judgment. Imperfectas it necessarily was, the general effect of it was satisfactory, and kept out ofthe Exhibition many unsuitable articles. Practically the system worked well,and there is no doubt that the Exhibition, as a whole, is a fair representation ofthe present state of British industry. An examination of the list of exhibitorsshows that very few names indeed of artists or manufacturers of eminence areabsent. It is probable, however, that there are fewer novelties in mechanicalinventions than there would otherwise have been, had the Legislature providedagainst piracy of them at an earlier period than April, 1851.

It is now time to speak of the origin of the Building, and of its general features,so far as they have influenced the system which has been adopted in classifyingand arranging the articles in it. An account of its scientific construction will befound in another part of this volume.

As early as January, 1850, the Commission named a Committee “for all mattersrelating to the Building,” consisting of—

The Duke of Buccleuch.The Earl of Ellesmere.

Mr. Barry, R.A.

Mr. Cubitt, Pres. Inst. C.E.

Mr. Stephenson.

Mr. Cockerell, R.A.Mr. Brunel.

Mr. Donaldson.

Mr. Cubitt was elected Chairman of this Committee, and from the earliestperiod to the opening of the Exhibition, has given daily and unremitting atten-tion to the subject, at great personal sacrifice of his valuable time. On the 21st ofFebruary, 1850, the Building Committee reported favourably on the fitness of thepresent site in Hyde Park, which had been suggested in the early stages of theundertaking, and for the use of which it had been already announced that HerMajesty’s permission had been obtained. The Committee ventured at once torecommend that upwards of 10 acres should be covered m, a bold step at thattime (21st February), when no data whatever of the space likely to be filled hadbeen received {Min. vii., p. 5). It was their opinion that it was desirable to obtainsuggestions, by public competition, as to the general arrangements of the groundplan of the Building, and public invitations were accordingly issued. They alsoreported that when a plan for the general arrangement should have been obtainedand approved, they would invite, by a second public notice, designs accompaniedby tenders, from the builders and manufacturers of the United Kingdom , for theconstruction of the Building, in the form, and according to the general arrangement,which should be fixed upon. In answer to the invitation to send in plans,upwards of 245 designs and specifications were submitted. Of these 38 were con-tributed by foreigners: Franee sending 27 ; Belgium 2; Holland 3; Hanover 1;JN'aples 1; Switzerland 2; Rhein Prussia 1; Hamburg 1; 128 by residents inLondon and its environs; 51 by residents in provincial towns of England; 6 by