INTRODUCTION.

21

residents in Scotland; 3 by residents in Ireland ; and 7 were anonymous. Allthese plans were publicly exhibited during a month, from the 10 th of June, atthe Institution of Civil Engineers, Great George Street, Westminster. The Build-ing Committee reported on the merits of them, selecting two lists of the competi-tors. They considered the one “entitled to favourable and honourable mention,”and the second “ entitled to further higher honorary distinction.” But theyaccompanied their report with the important announcement, that in their opinionthere was no “ single plan so accordant with the peculiar objects in view, either inthe principle or detail of its arrangement, as to warrant them in recommending itfor adoption” (Min. xvii., p. 6). The Committee, therefore, submitted a plan of First P ,an -their own, and assisted by Mr. Digby Wyatt, Mr. Charles Heard Wild, andMr. Owen Jones, they prepared extensive working drawings, which were litho-graphed. They issued invitations for tenders to execute works in accordance withthem, requesting from competitors, in addition, such suggestions and modifications,accompanied with estimates of cost, as might possibly become the. means of effect-ing a considerable reduction upon the general expense. In the actual instructionsthey stipulated that tenders, in which changes were proposed, would be onlyentertained provided they were “ accompanied by working drawings and specifica-tions, and fully priced bills of quantities.”

The Building Committee published in detail the reasons, both of economy andtaste, which had induced them to prepare plans for a structure of brick, the prin-cipal feature of which was a dome two hundred feet in diameter. Public opiniondid not coincide in the propriety of such a building on such a site, and the resi-dents in the neighbourhood raised especial objections. The subject was broughtbefore both Houses of Parliament; and in the House of Commons , on the 4thJuly, 1850, two divisions took place on the question, whether the proposed siteshould be used at all for any building for the Exhibition. In the one division,the numbers in favour of the site were 166 to 47, and in the second 166 to 46.

The Commissioners published, at considerable length, a statement of the reasonswhich had induced them to prefer the site, and there can be no doubt that theforce of this document mainly influenced the large majority in both divisions.

Whilst the plan of the Building Committee was under discussion, Mr. Paxton Mr - Paxton’awas led, by the hostility which it had incurred, to submit a plan for a structurechiellv of glass and iron, on principles similar to those which had been adoptedand successfully tried by him at Chatsworth. Messrs. Fox, Henderson, and Co.,tendered for the erection of the Building Committee’s plan, and, strictly in accord-ance with the conditions of tender, they also submitted estimates for the constructionof the building suggested by Mr. Paxton, and adapted in form to the officialground plan. An engraving of Mr. Paxton’s original design was published inthe Illustrated London News , 6th July, 1850, which, when compared with thebuilding that has been actually erected, will show what changes were subsequentlymade. The Commissioners having fully investigated the subject, finally adopted, onthe 26th July, Messrs. Fox, Henderson, & Co.’s tender to construct Mr. Paxton’sbuilding, as then proposed, for the sum of £79,800. Considerable modifications,additions, and improvements in the architectural details were subsequently made,which have raised the proposed original cost of the building. As soon as thedecision was made, fresh working drawings had to be prepared, and eve'ry meanstaken for expediting the works. These were carried on under the superintendenceof Mr. Cubitt, assisted by Mr. D. Wyatt, Mr. O. Jones, and Mr. C. Wild.

1