The World's Fair

[Kadam303]

whole histories of all buildings are similarly stupid , doesn't make sense and seams no one wants to know ...who how and why

 

[caballero reyes]

Washington D.C.; Stranger Theories, First Images

 

[Persej]

whole histories of all buildings are similarly stupid , doesn't make sense and seams no one wants to know ...who how and why

There is a comment below that video:

Apparently the parliament building in Vancouver British Columbia Canada was built by some kid who won a contest aswell.

On Wikipedia:

Francis Rattenbury, a recent English immigrant, 25 years old, entered the contest and signed his drawings with the pseudonym "A B.C. Architect". He progressed to the second round, signing his drawing "For Queen and Province" and eventually won the competition

British Columbia Parliament Buildings - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rattenbury was born in 1867 in Leeds, England. He began his architectural career with an apprenticeship in 1884 to the "Lockwood and Mawson Company" in England, where he worked until he left for Canada. In 1891, he arrived in Vancouver, in the Canadian province of British Columbia.

Rattenbury studied at Leeds Grammar School, where he obtained excellent results, and then attended Yorkshire College in the same city. In 1885 he began an apprenticeship with his uncles’ architectural partnership, Mawson and Mawson, successors to the renowned firm of Lockwood and Mawson.

RATTENBURY, FRANCIS MAWSON – Dictionary of Canadian Biography

RATTENBURY, Francis Mawson, architect, businessman, and municipal councillor; b. 11 Oct. 1867 in Leeds, England, son of John Owen Rattenbury, a merchant and later an artist, and Mary Ann Mawson; m. first 18 June 1898 Florence Eleanor Nunn (d. 1929) in Victoria, and they had a son and a daughter...

www.biographi.ca

In our times, a 25 years old man is considered to be some kid who probably just finished his studies, but in his time he already had 8 (or 7) years of working experience, which means that he probably finished college studies when he was 17 (or 18) years old. Which is not unusual for that time.

The raising of school leaving age is the term used by the United Kingdom government for changes of the age at which a person is allowed to leave its compulsory education phase in England and Wales as specified under an Education Act.

In England and Wales, this age has been raised on several occasions since the introduction of universal compulsory education in 1880. Many of the increases in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries were intended to generate more skilled labour by giving more time for pupils to gain skills and qualifications. Education was initially made compulsory for 5- to 10-year-olds in 1880. The leaving age was increased to 11 in 1893, 12 in 1899, 14 in 1918, 15 in 1947 and 16 in 1972.

Raising of school leaving age in England and Wales - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I wrote about 15th century before:

In the 15th century, students in Germany typically entered university at a much younger age than today. The average age of matriculation (signing into university) ranged from 13 to 16 years old. Many students were even younger, some entering as early as 12 or 13, especially if they had received preparatory education in a Latin school.

They were probably learning only the necessary stuff so they were not overwhelmed by unimportant information for work as people are today, but I still think that there were many bright people at that time. Something that we perhaps do not fully understand, and hence ascribe those buildings to some ancient civilization.

 

[Seato]

I have been going through this thread recently and doing some research. I just so happened to come across a physical copy of the book What the Victorians Did for Us by Adam Hart-Davis in 2001 in connection with a BBC documentary of the same name[1].

Inside I found it had a section on Britain’s 1851 Worlds Fair or The Great Exhibition of the Industry of All Nations[2]. It has a nice synopsis that I may post as a pdf, I wasn’t able to find an easily accessible online version. I tried to follow some things that caught my attention and in following these clues and then trying to explain them this post turned into a bit of a loose essay. So have I added some footnotes and a bibliography at the end to help anyone reading follow or look at the sources for themselves.

I note some details of interest from Davis' book

‘In six months more than six million visitors – a entire quarter of the population – travelled to London’s Hyde Park to see it. They paid their shilling – after the first three weeks, when the entrance fee was higher to give preference to the upper classes – and spent all day walking around the exhibits.’[3]

With 300,000 people already present before it opened 1st May 1851 it was certainly busy. Davis provides some explanation to the high attendance figures throughout its existence.

‘People came from far and wide, whole villages arriving on excursions organised by their vicars. Special trains some organised by Thomas Cook, brought six or seven hundred people at a time from towns across the country. There were hundreds of visitors from France and Germany and America, which was probably the first time that foreign tourists had ever been invited into the country.’

Note this was seemingly the first of the fairs intended as an international event. With relatively cheap entry prices in later weeks and massive railways networks being established across England it was possible for large numbers of people travel. Moreover, it seems that certain figures such as Thomas Cook were actively working to facilitate and encourage the transport of people.

Cook had founded a travel agency that organised various tours. Wikipedia credits him with the transport of 165,000 people to the Great Exhibition[4]. It notes that in a tour in 1841 he charged passengers only one shilling for the journey. Generally the railway companies sort to encourage use of their services with relatively cheap fares and in the UK legislation had set third class fairs at 1 penny a mile in 1844 Railway Regulation Act[5]. At the time there were numerous railways building their own track rather than the modern National Railway and so they had to competition to push down prices.

The newspaper the Times commenting on the event

‘said it had ‘an effect so grand and yet so natural that it hardly seemed to be put together by design, or to be the work of human artificers’[6]

Certainty the grand collection of exhibits from across Great Britain and the globe concentrated in one place for people to see, perhaps for the first time would be astonishing. One might consider it a good time to introduce new technologies to people if anyone had been concealing something. Certainly, it helps bring all the inventions of Britain and beyond to one place to be observed and catalogued.

The centrepiece of course was the grand ‘Crystal Palace’ with much commentary already on its construction in this thread.

Interestingly for the main structure it seems the Great Exhibition building committee

‘invited designs from the public, received 245 entries and then rejected every single one.’[7]

A bit odd don’t you think. Makes you wonder if the entry request was just a public relations effort and they may have already known what they wanted built. Davis describes their design as similar to a railway station, whilst Edward Walford in his 1878 account describes it as a gigantic dome.[8] I would much appreciate if anyone can find an image of the building proposal.

Whether the motivation of the building committee was driven by terrible artistic taste or something more sinister you will no doubt have realised that their plans did not come to pass. Indeed public backlash against the design being pushed by the building committee was so severe it was feared the prospect of the exhibition might collapse.

This looming disaster would be averted by Joseph Paxton as Walford reports.

‘At "the eleventh hour," however, Mr. Paxton, as we have stated above, came forward with a plan, which he considered would meet all the requirements of the Committee, and avoid all the objections of the public. "It was not," said Mr. Paxton himself, at a meeting of the Derby Institute, "until one morning, when I was present with my friend, Mr. Ellis, at an early sitting in the House of Commons, that the idea of sending in a design occurred to me. A conversation took place between us, with reference to the construction of the new House of Commons, in the course of which I observed, that I was afraid they would also commit a blunder in the building for the Industrial Exhibition; I told him that I had a notion in my head, and that if he would accompany me to the Board of Trade I would ascertain whether it was too late to send in a design. I asked the Executive Committee whether they were so far committed to the plans as to be precluded from receiving another; the reply was, 'Certainly not; the specifications will be out in a fortnight,. but there is no reason why a clause should not be introduced, allowing of the reception of another design.' I said, 'Well, if you will introduce such a clause, I will go home, and, in nine days hence, I will bring you my plans all complete.' No doubt the Executive thought me a conceited fellow, and that what I had said was nearer akin to romance than to common sense. Well, this was on Friday, the 11th of June. From London I went to the Menai Straits, to see the third tube of the Britannia Bridge placed, and on my return to Derby I had to attend to some business at the Board Room, during which time, however, my whole mind was devoted to this project; and whilst the business proceeded, I sketched the outline of my design on a large sheet of blottingpaper. Well, having sketched this design, I sat up all night, until I had worked it out to my own satisfaction; and, by the aid of my friend Mr. Barlow, on the 15th, I was enabled to complete the whole of the plans by the Saturday following, on which day I left Rowsley for London. On arriving at the Derby station, I met Mr. Robert Stephenson, a member of the Building Committee, who was also on his way to the metropolis. Mr. Stephenson minutely examined the plans, and became thoroughly engrossed with them, until at length he exclaimed that the design was just the thing, and he only wished it had been submitted to the Committee in time. Mr. Stephenson, however, laid the plans before the Committee, and at first the idea was rather pooh-poohed; but the plans gradually grew in favour, and by publishing the design in the Illustrated London News, and showing the advantage of such an erection over one composed of fifteen millions of bricks and other materials, which would have to be removed at a great loss, the Committee did, in the end, reject the abortion of a child of their own, and unanimously recommended my bantling. I am bound to say that I have been treated by the Committee with great fairness. Mr. Brunel, the author of the great dome, I believe, was at first so wedded to his own plan that he would hardly look at mine. But Mr. Brunel was a gentleman and a man of fairness, and listened with every attention to all that could be urged in favour of my plans. As an instance of that gentleman's very creditable conduct, I will mention that a difficulty presented itself to the Committee as to what was to be done with the large trees, and it was gravely suggested that they should be walled in. I remarked that I could cover the trees without any difficulty; when Mr. Brunel asked, 'Do you know their height?' I acknowledged that I did not. On the following morning Mr. Brunel called at Devonshire House, and gave me the measurement of the trees, which he had taken early in the morning, adding—'Although I mean to try to win with my own plan, I will give you all the information I can.' Having given this preliminary explanation of the origin and execution of my design, I will pass over the question of merit, leaving that to be discussed and decided by others when the whole shall have been completed."

Notwithstanding that Sir Robert Peel and Prince Albert strongly favoured Mr. Paxton's scheme, it was at first but coldly received by the Building Committee, who still clung to their own plan. Nothing daunted, Mr. Paxton appealed to the British public; and this he did by the aid of the woodcuts and pages of the Illustrated London News. Everybody but the Committee was at once convinced of the practicability, simplicity, and beauty of Mr. Paxton's plan, which, in fact, was but a vast expansion of a conservatory design, built by him at Chatsworth for the flowering of the Victoria Lily. The people and the Prince were heartily with him; and, thus encouraged, Mr. Paxton resolved to make another effort with the Building Committee. It happened that the Committee had invited candidates for raising their edifice to suggest any improvements in it that might occur to them. This opened a crevice for the tender of Mr. Paxton's plan as an "improvement" on that of the Committee. After some discussion, the result was that the glazed "palace" was chosen unanimously, not only by the Building Committee, but by the Royal Commissioners also. Mr. Paxton's design, as everybody knows, was that of a huge building in the style of a garden conservatory, in which iron and glass should be almost the sole materials, wood being introduced only in the fittings. This method was at once adopted, and the result was a building in Hyde Park, nearly twice the breadth and fully four times the length of St. Paul's Cathedral. The edifice—which was appropriately called the "Crystal Palace"—covered nearly twenty acres of ground, and contained eight miles of tables. It was erected and finished in the short space of seven months.’ [9]

You may have noticed in the above the Dome project design is accredited to Mr Brunel (Isambard Kingdom Brunel[10]) a member of the building committee, no conflict of interest there I’m sure. Thankfully pressure from the public and Prince Albert (we will return to him later) consort to Queen Victoria seemed to prevail and Paxton’s design would go ahead.

Davis notes

‘St Paul’s Cathedral had taken thirty years to build; the Crystal Palace, six times the size, was put together in nine months.’[11]

Walford comments on the impressive construction process.

‘As no brick and mortar were used, and all the proportions of the building depended upon its iron pillars and girders, nearly all the materials arrived on the spot ready to be placed and secured in their destined positions. Yet vast operations were necessary even then in its construction, and called forth the most admirable display of scientific ingenuity, systematic arrangements, and great energy. Hardly any scaffolding was used, the columns, as they were set up, answering their purpose. Machines for performing all the preparatory operations required to be done on the spot were introduced in the building, and some of them invented for the occasion; such, for instance, as the sash-bar machine, gutter-machine, mortisingmachine, painting-machine, glazing-machine, and other ingenious contrivances for economising labour.

Throughout the progress of the building it was visited by many of the most distinguished persons in the country; and the contractors finding that the numbers who flocked to it impeded in some degree their operations, determined to make a charge of five shillings for admission, the proceeds of which were to constitute an accident-relief fund for the workmen. A very considerable sum was thus raised, though the number of accidents was very small, and the nature of the accidents not at all serious. During the months of December and January upwards of 2,000 persons were employed upon the building.[12]’

Paxton’s modular design inspired by his experience cultivating the Victoria regia lily, made possible assembly far quicker. Davis gives a more direct demonstration of this inspiration from the natural world in minutes 4-10 of his documentary.[13]

It seems perhaps the greater challenge was getting the pieces prepared. As pointed out by Davis, Fox Henderson the contractor had to get the 300,000 glass panes from French and Belgian glass blowers.[14]

The size of manufacturing and the speed of the construction may be connected in part to state support for the project. Returning to Prince Albert we see him accredited as the mastermind behind the Grand Exhibition by the contemporary writer Walford. Davis however identifies Henry Cole as the ‘prime mover’. Asserting him to be responsible for persuading Albert to support the exhibition. Following which he kindly allowed Albert the credit as the exhibition becomes the first of its kind in Britain to receive royal patronage.

So wait who exactly is Henry Cole? A glance at Wikipedia shows Sir Henry Cole 1808-1882 (knighted for his role in the Grand Exhibition) as a inventor, civil servant and it just so happens a member of the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce. The same Society who is organising the exhibition and responsible for previous exhibitions in the country. In fact Prince Albert himself is a member of the Society having joined in 1843 before becoming invited to become its president by a Mr Henry Cole.[15]

Fortunately, Mr Cole was kind enough to give us an account of some of his goings on in a rather extensive book that just so happens to include a section with information and letters about The Grand Exhibition.[16]

The letters indeed show some of the correspondence of Prince Albert and his aides. Included is an interesting letter of Prince Alberts application for a Royal Commission for the exhibition.

“Sir, - The Society of Arts having during several years formed Exhibitions of Works of National Industry, which have been very successful, believe that they have thereby acquired sufficient experience, and have sufficiently prepared the public mind, to venture upon the execution of a plan they have long cherished-to invite a quinquennial Exhibition in London of the Industry of all Nations.

“They think that the only condition wanting to ensure the success of such an undertaking, would be the sanction of the Crown given in a conspicuous manner; and they are of the opinion that no more efficacious mode could be adopted than the issue of a Royal Commission to enquire into, and report upon, the practicability of the scheme, and the best mode of executing it.

So Prince Albert is being pressured by Mr Cole and his friends who seem to recognize the Crowns Public support as important for their exhibition to have the desired impact. Who wouldn’t want the support of and influence of the crown after all?

Looking a bit further a letter caught my eye. From Terrace, Kensington 9th October 1849. Apparently with this talk of a Royal Commission being involved in the exhibit some people were spreading rumours around the Queens involvement and potentially handing out prizes; such talk would be sure to draw interest to the event. Prince Albert has made complaint to Kensington that her majesty should not be pledged to anything without her ‘express sanction’.

In addition to his excuses Kensington reports on some trivial things relating to the exhibition and other matters where he states.

“Also a suggestion of Mr. Wentworth Dilke’s; also an impression of the seal, which is a modification of a seal representing the world encircled by a serpent, used by the Society of Arts for many years.

Well that is an interesting choice of seals for a Society isn’t it, I guess serpents really embody the spirit of the arts. Unfortunately I have been unable to find any physical images relating to this symbol/seal apparently used by the society so if anyone should find it I would appreciate it being posted. It seems though a hint perhaps to look into this benevolent Society so dedicated to this exhibition.

As luck would have it a Thomas Mortimer 1730-1810 wrote a very enthusiastic pamphlet in 1764 with the title ‘A concise account of the rise, progress, and present state of the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce : instituted at London, Anno MDCCLIV’.[17]

Wikipedia seems to think the pamphlet was originally published anonymously with no mention of his membership in the society[18]. Despite which he appears to admit to his position as a member within his introduction, but have no fear for he insists he has ‘strictly pursued the dictates of impartiality, candour and truth, throughout the whole narrative’ so who are we to disagree?[19]

The Society was founded in 1754 by William Shipley[20] a simple “cultivateur modeste”[21] who came to the idea of using subscriptions to fund premiums to support ‘Arts, Manufacturing and Commerce’. This in turn inspired by some success practicing this model lead to his original proposal and subsequent establishment of ‘The Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce.’

Supported by a two guinea annual subscription[22] and the charity of its members it sought to distribute honorary (medals and certificates) and financial rewards.[23] Its public statement making the promises of these rewards for

‘such productions, inventions and improvements as shall tend to the employing of the poor, to the increase of trade, and the riches and honor of this kingdom by promoting industry and emulation.’[24]

If anything the Societies name may be too short, as it seemed to desire to encourage through financial incentive advancements towards most matters of society within the British Empire and later providing patronage[25]. China’s Social credit system comes to mind, though of course the Society is only offering positive encouragement it seems.

The society saw substantial growth from about 17 members within the first year to 81 during 1755[26] and supposedly 2000-3000 by 1764.[27] D. G. C. Allan author of the 1974 ‘The Society of Arts and Government, 1754-1800 Public Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce in Eighteenth-Century England’ observes the presence of various Statesmen including Duke’s and Earls of the nobility within the membership.[28] Allan is a bit more sceptical of the impact of the Society on the progress within British society. Though it is little surprise that the Society may give itself too much credit for the successes of others with such a wide and powerful membership it seems unwise to dismiss its possible influence. By establishing it’s a role as encouraging advancements in British Society it had the benefit that it can associate itself and feed upon the fame of any success in that sector to enlarge itself.

In offering bounties for inventions and mechanical advancements[29] the Society would naturally attract anyone making such developments. Thus, it would not only have had degree of control of knowledge of any technological developments but, would also have the potential to suppress any unwanted progress in science or technology. One can see that on a surface level the Society may encourage the betterment of the nation and bringing people together (as was likely believed in earnest by some of its membership) however, it also represents a potential control mechanism.

The logical future of this would be to expand this reach perhaps with a Grand Exhibition of sorts, maybe an international one.

Prince Albert, in his speech at a banquet held at York, said, in the name of the Royal Commission:—"Although we perceive in some countries an apprehension that the advantages to be derived from the Exhibition will be mainly reaped by England, and a consequent distrust in the effects of our scheme upon their own interests, we must, at the same time, freely and gratefully acknowledge, that our invitation has been received by all nations, with whom communication was possible, in that spirit of liberality and friendship in which it was tendered, and that they are making great exertions, and incurring great expenses, in order to meet our plans."[30]

The Grand Exhibition seems to be the culmination of this idea summoning mechanics, inventors, artists and academics from across the nation and the wider world to present their deeds to the world with the additional prospect of winning rewards and recognition for their accomplishments. A total of £20,000 was gathered to award many prizes in the 1851 Grand Exhibition.[31]

“Yes, the nations were stirring at their call, but not as the trumpet sounds to battle; they were summoning them to the peaceful field of a nobler competition; not to build the superiority or predominance of one country on the depression and prostration of another, but where all might strive who could do most to embellish, improve, and elevate their common humanity."[32]

Seeing the event framed as humanity coming together in harmony brings to mind ideas around plans about using outside threats such as aliens to bring humanity together at long last. All in unity and of course under a single government. The Grand Exhibition of course is presented on more peaceful terms but I get the sense that common humanity in the eyes of the British elites of the time was imagined more as humanity unifying under the guidance of the British Empire. The event does seem on some level to truly demonstrate what could be achieved working together not only representing a massive concentration of effort by the British crown and state but other nations as well. The power witnessed is certainly impressive such that even now we are unsure whether their accomplishments were possible through ordinary means. Any beings driven by darkness witnessing this event would be filled with desire to dominate and wield this power of unified human action.

Mortimer’s account makes unsubtle mentions of Britain’s superiority and concludes with an enthusiastic prayer in support of the Society.

“That this most free and independent Society, instituted FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD, may long continue to do honor to its patrons, and that its present most excellent plan with all possible improvements may be handed down to posterity, and by them be sacredly revered, and firmly upheld with the rest of those inestimable privileges, which have rendered us superior to all the nations of the earth.”[33]

Note the emphasis on ‘FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD’ is from the author not me. Me thinks he doth protest too much. Mortimer offers some useful insight into the thinking of the Society and it’s about to get fishy.

The Society did not only support developments but would actively use their influence and patronage to push for machines and advancements they desired. One such example is the 1761 plan ‘for supplying the markets of London and Westminster with fish from distant sea-ports and rivers by land carriage.’[34] Seems simple enough, the Society desired the development of light weight carriages capable of carrying large quantities of fish requiring only a pair of horses to pull it. Immediately we see that the Society’s activities include more than simply supporting improvements to the nation, but they are actively constructing plans and acting on them to achieve this.

Perhaps marking the influence of the Society a £2000 contribution (not direct financial aid) was later voted on in Parliament in 1764 to support this project.[35] The Societies’ vision for the project though seems to have gone further than simply transporting more fish to London. Mortimer explains the anticipated developments from this. The improvements to fisheries would in turn encourage settling on the coasts, growing the industry and raising generations of good sailors who in turn would be more keen to join the navy and serve the state. This plan having been ‘calculated for the public good’.[36] It becomes clear that the Society in its plans was looking quite far into the future and actively seeking to directly manipulate society and its development with a bit of social engineering. Today the fish carts tomorrow the world?

My earliest reading on the society gave me some Hollywood vibes of an industry supporting yet ultimately with a stranglehold on creativity. However this example shifted my perception to an organisation far closer to the modern day organisation known as the World Economic Forum. A place where all the good hearted people of the world gather to decide what’s best for everything else and use their power and influence to nudge things on accordingly; with little regard or outright contempt for those beneath them.

The Societies intent and known plans at the time were not obviously malevolent and neither was it a particularly secret organisation. In fact, I suspect akin to the World Economic Forum it may have functioned as a vehicle for powers behind the scenes to publicly interact with the world through puppets perhaps some being well meaning.

The Society had long sort Royal support as noted by Allan and at last in 1843 it had achieved it with the membership and Presidency of Prince Albert (who appears to have had a genuine love for the arts[37]) elevating its prestige and influence and enabling the Grand Exhibition[38]. Which given what we now understand of the Society, they likely planned and anticipated considerable benefits to be gained for themselves and the Nation long into the future.

Today the Society now named ‘The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce’ is just another one of many non-government organisations, quite far from the height of its power under the British Empire. Its propaganda today is far less subtle and whatever it may have been in the past is quite openly promoting malevolent diversity agendas.

Their modern works include this hideous poster to let you know what they are all about. In case you have not had enough of your daily dose of dystopia you can look at their animated talks on their philosophy. [39]

As for the British Grand Exhibition of 1851 it seems that there are quite of lot of contemporary sources around the event and from those involved like Mr Cole whose works I have barely touched. I think perhaps the Grand Exhibition may be a good place to look for more clues on this matter of World’s Fairs and motivations behind them, with there not only being plentiful sources, but most are in English due to the events location in Britain.

Looking at things the more I get the sense of hyperdimensional forces at play. The Society and its influence. The building committee’s insistence on an unpleasant Dome only for the event to be saved by the creativity of Paxton and his Crystal Palace inspired by the natural world; how he suddenly received the idea to submit a design at the eleventh hour. I wonder perhaps what effects these two very different buildings may have had in the hyperdimensional world and perhaps may have led dark forces to later destroy the Crystal Palace in the fire of 1936. This brings to mind the C’s comment [40]

A: You are dancing on the 3rd density ballroom floor. "Alice likes to go through the looking glass" at the Crystal Palace.

Was the Crystal Palace on some level inspired by a higher STO influence?

Bibliography

Cole, Henry, Sir; Cole, Alan S.; Cole, Henrietta (1884) Fifty years of public work of Sir Henry Cole, K. C. B., accounted for in his deeds, speeches and writings Fifty years of public work of Sir Henry Cole, K. C. B., accounted for in his deeds, speeches and writings : Cole, Henry, Sir, 1808-1882 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Cassiopaea Forum Session 18th July 1998 Session 18 July 1998

Discover South Kensington Prince Albert and the Great Exhibition Prince Albert and The Great Exhibition - Discover South Kensington

D. G. C. Allan (1974) Public Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce in Eighteenth-Century England https://gwern.net/doc/economics/1974-allan.pdf

Hart-Davis, Adam (2001) What the Victorians Did for Us

Hollowood, Russell (2013) Railway Museum Fares Fare Fares fare - National Railway Museum blog

Mortimer, Thomas (1764) A concise account of the rise, progress, and present state of the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce : instituted at London, anno MDCCLIV A concise account of the rise, progress, and present state of the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce : instituted at London, anno MDCCLIV : Mortimer, Thomas, 1730-1810 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The Victorian Web Chapter 3. The Exhibition Years Chapter 3. The Exhibition Years

Walford, Edward (1878) The Great Exhibition of 1851, in Old and New London: Volume 5 pp 28-39 The Great Exhibition of 1851 | British History Online

Wikipedia Isambard Kingdom Brunel Isambard Kingdom Brunel - Wikipedia

Wikipedia Thomas Mortimer Thomas Mortimer (writer) - Wikipedia

Wikipedia Thomas Cook Thomas Cook - Wikipedia

Wikipedia William Shipley William Shipley - Wikipedia

BBC (2001) What the Victorians did for Us The Conquerors

Taylor, Matthew (2021) RSA Minimate: A framework for change,

---

[1] BBC (2001) What the Victorians did for Us The Conquerors
[2] Hart-Davis, Adam (2001) What the Victorians Did for Us, 74-84
[3] Hart-Davis, Adam (2001) What the Victorians Did for Us, 74
[4] Wikipedia Thomas Cook Thomas Cook - Wikipedia
[5] Hollowood, Russell (2013) Railway Museum Fares Fare Fares fare - National Railway Museum blog
[6] Hart-Davis, Adam (2001) What the Victorians Did for Us, 74
[7] Hart-Davis, Adam (2001) What the Victorians Did for Us, 78-79
[8] Walford, Edward (1878) The Great Exhibition of 1851, 22-39
[9] Walford, Edward (1878) The Great Exhibition of 1851, 22-39
[10] Wikipedia Isambard Kingdom Brunel Isambard Kingdom Brunel - Wikipedia
[11] Hart-Davis, Adam (2001) What the Victorians Did for Us, 81
[12] Walford, Edward (1878) The Great Exhibition of 1851, 22-39
[13] BBC (2001) What the Victorians did for Us The Conquerors
[14] What the Victorians Did for Us 2001, Adam Hart-Davis, 82
[15] Discover South Kensington Prince Albert and the Great Exhibition
[16] Cole, Henry, Sir, (1884) Fifty years of public work of Sir Henry Cole, 116+
[17] Mortimer, Thomas (1764) A concise account of the rise
[18] Wikipedia Thomas Mortimer Thomas Mortimer (writer) - Wikipedia
[19] Mortimer, Thomas (1764) A concise account of the rise, viii-ix
[20] Wikipedia William Shipley William Shipley - Wikipedia
[21] D. G. C. Allan (1974) Public Encouragement of Arts, 436
[22] D. G. C. Allan (1974) Public Encouragement of Arts, 444
[23] Mortimer, Thomas (1764) A concise account of the rise, 14-18
[24] Mortimer, Thomas (1764) A concise account of the rise, 24
[25] A concise account of the rise pg 40-43, 46-47
[26] Mortimer, Thomas (1764) A concise account of the rise, 33-34
[27] Mortimer, Thomas (1764) A concise account of the rise, 63
[28] D. G. C. Allan (1974) Public Encouragement of Arts, 443-444
[29] Mortimer, Thomas (1764) A concise account of the rise, 56-57
[30] Walford, Edward (1878) The Great Exhibition of 1851, 22-39
[31] Walford, Edward (1878) The Great Exhibition of 1851, 22-39
[32] Walford, Edward (1878) The Great Exhibition of 1851, 22-39
[33] Mortimer, Thomas (1764) A concise account of the rise, 65
[34] Mortimer, Thomas (1764) A concise account of the rise, 43-45
[35] D. G. C. Allan (1974) Public Encouragement of Arts, 445
[36] Mortimer, Thomas (1764) A concise account of the rise, 43-45
[37] The Victorian Web Chapter 3. The Exhibition Years
[38] D. G. C. Allan (1974) Public Encouragement of Arts
[39] Taylor, Matthew (2021) RSA Minimate: A framework for change,
[40] Cassiopaea Forum Session 18th July 1998