PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS—SECTION J. 205 
theory, the other practice; e¢tiex is incomplete without the other, 
and an accurate knowledge of Jo¢/ is essential to the successful 
completion of the work. Then how can the one be antagonistic 
to the other ? 
The late Professor Rankine, in his admirable dissertation on 
the ‘“‘ Harmony of Theory and Practice in Mechanics,” traces the: 
origin of the opposition of theory to practice to the ancient Greeks. 
He says :—‘‘Their notions were generally pervaded by a great 
fallacy, which attained its complete and most mischievous 
development amongst the medieval schoolmen, the remains of 
whose influence can be traced even at the present day.” It arose, 
in the first instance, from the imperfections of a theory which was 
unable to explain ordinary natural phenomena, and was not 
recognised as false until the time of Newton, when the science of 
mechanics became better understood. 
Again : “ This prejudice, as I have stated, is not to be found 
at the present day in the form of a definite and avowed principle ; 
it is to be traced only in its pernicious effects in the progress 
both of speculative science and of practice, and sometimes 
in a sort of tacit influence which it exerts upon the forms 
of expressions of writers who have assuredly no intention of 
perpetuating a delusion.” 
A great deal has been written during the last few years on 
Technical Education, and the subiect is an important one in the 
colonies ; but I think considerable misconception has arisen both 
here and in England. The articles of Sir Lyon Playfair, Lord 
Armstrong, and those in the leading professional journals show 
an apparent want of unanimity, which could only have arisen, in 
my opinion, from a misunderstanding. In speaking of technical 
education, as applied to engineering, it is necessary to state 
exactly what we mean. 
In carrying out engineering works, a great number of artisans 
areemployed. We have pattern-makers, moulders, fitters, turners, 
smiths, boiler-makers, and others. I have a great respect for the 
hand-skill of the artisan, and for the intelligence which directs 
it ; but I think you will agree with me that it is neither desirable 
nor expedient for any but the most distinguished of the artisan 
class to go through a course of training as complete as that 
which I have shown to be necessary for engineers. There is a 
wide difference between the education necessary for the engineer, 
whose function it is to work with his brain, and that of the 
artisan, who works with his hands. A knowledge of drawing, 
physics, chemistry, mathematics, and mechanics, supplemented by 
laboratory demonstrations and workshop practice, of such a 
character as to enable an artisan or an apprentice to understand 
the scientific principles which underlie their respective trades, 
will, in my opinion, completely meet their requirements so far as 
the engineering trades are concerned; and such instruction is 
