The design of the Building Committee, when published to the world, met with anything but public approbation; some of the objectors called in question the practicability of the execution of the enormous dome, at least within the time assigned; others complained that the outlay would be unnecessarily large for a purpose avowedly temporary, and expressed their fears that so costly a structure once erected, there would be the less probability of its subsequent removal; but the objection which appeared to have most weight with the public at large was, the great amount of solid brick construction in the walls, &c., which, it was urged, would require a longer time than could be allowed for their erection, and that the carting of the materials would cause serious injury in the Park and the surrounding neighbourhood. This strong current of objection seemed to bid fair to overwhelm the much-abused design. To increase the difficulties which seemed to gather round the progress of this noble undertaking, an exceedingly vexatious and factious agitation was got up in opposition to the proposed site in Hyde Park, and petitions and counter-petitions were presented to both Houses of Parliament, and much of the time of the Legislature was wasted in fruitless discussion on the subject. The Building Committee thought it desirable, under these circumstances, to lay before the public their reasons for recommending the site in the Park, and therefore issued a memorandum of the grounds on which it had been selected.[2] The result was, that the opposition was defeated in the Legislature, and finally crushed by the force of public opinion. The Tenders. In the mean time the competing contractors had been obliged to strain every nerve to get their tenders ready by the 10th of July, when, altogether, nineteen were sent in, but eight only were for undertaking the whole of the work; the amounts of these are stated to have ranged between 150,000_l._ and 120,000_l._, and this for the use only of the materials for the building. But, at the same time, in accordance with the recommendation and invitation contained in the last part of the Report already quoted, Messrs. Fox, Henderson and Co. presented a tender upon a design entirely different in construction and appearance, though resembling that of the Committee in the general arrangement of the plan. [Illustration: Exterior View of the Building Committee's Design] This design was by Mr. Joseph Paxton, and resembled in its general form the building as it is now executed, with the exception of the transept and semicircular roof, which were subsequently added, and were suggested by Mr. Barry.