A WEEKLY ILLUSTRATED JOURNAL OF SCIENCE 



" To the solid ground 

 Of Niitwc trusts the mind which builds Jar aye." — WoRDSWORTH 



THURSDAY, MAY 2, iS 



THE CIVIL ENGINEERS' BANQUET 



WE do not grudge our friends the Civil Engineers 

 their annual felicitations, nor Mr. Gladstone his 

 congenial moral reflections. It were hardly worth while 

 to dissect after-dinner rhetoric, however full of fallacies. 

 But those ever-watchful teachers of mankind, the daily 

 press, have pounced upon the speeches delivered on Wed- 

 nesday week, and have made them an occasion for pro- 

 pounding solemnly what was spoken hilariously ; and 

 this deserves looking to. 



The Times, of course, armed at every point, does battle 

 valiantly for decentralisation of science, because that 

 notion seemed to find favour with the notabilities of the 

 evening. Mr. Hawksley, president of the Civil Engineers' 

 Institute, in toasting Her Majesty's Ministers, compli- 

 mented them on the " performance of the negative duty 

 of letting his profession alone," adding, with unconscious 

 satire, that what the engineers had done " they had 

 achieved, not through, but in spite of, all Governments." 

 These two sentiments are quite intelligible and quite true ; 

 but the conclusion of the speech, which informs us that 

 " the Civil Engineers of this country approached the 

 Government with perfect reliance on its purity," conveyed 

 a needless truism ; to the pure all things are pure — to 

 pure engineers even a British Government is pure, of 

 course. But why dwell on so obvious a fact .' 



Well, this put Mr. Gladstone on his mettle. At once 

 absorbing the tribute to their inaction — rather a novel 

 compliment to his Administration — he evolved out of it 

 this syllogism : Engineering is science ; engineering likes 

 being left to its own devices ; therefore all science should 

 be left alone. This sort of logic is quite good enough for 

 dinner talk, but not for breakfast reading. What may be 

 e.vcused to convivial excitement in a flattered guest cannot 

 always be permitted to a journalist after an interval for 

 reflection. 



The Times of the 26th ult., after expatiating on the ad- 

 vantages of non-intervention in things in general, thus 

 disposes of science. " If," it says, " under such conditions 

 of Government, the State does nothing for science, it 

 cannot be helped ; nor need it be much lamented, con- 



VOL. VI. 



sidering how very little science stands in need of the aid. 

 If," it goes on to say, " the Institution of Civil Engineers 

 had been a creation of the State, fostered by State 

 bounties, and favoured by State protection, its members 

 would never have acquired such a position in the country 

 as they justly boast of holding now. As it is, they have 

 fought their way and been the founders of their own 

 fortune ; and so their president has the pleasure of telHng 

 the Prime Minister of the Kingdom that he and his con- 

 stituents have been and are independent of all Govern- 

 ments whatever." 



We give the sentence entire, because the nonsense it 

 contains does not admit of greater condensation. Let us 

 examine it a little. How is the engineering profession 

 typical, as here asserted, of science ? What is that pro- 

 fession ? Simply, and without any intended offence, a 

 profession for making money. Men put their sons into 

 it, and have them trained, rather imperfectly in England 

 it must be confessed, and push them forward in it, solely 

 because the contracts, commissions, and fees, are enor- 

 mous, and the chances of making a fortune pretty fair. 

 We by no means object to this in a broad way. Other 

 professions, held in high honour — the law, for instance — 

 are exactly in the same category. If men possessed, or 

 believed to be possessed, of special knowledge, find that 

 a high price is put on that knowledge in the market, they 

 are of course justified, as long as they perform honestly 

 what they undertake, in demanding the highest price they 

 can get for it. But in this respect how do they differ, not 

 merely from lawyers, but from manufacturers and even 

 from tradesmen.' Is there any difference between making 

 and selling so many yards of calico and so many miles of 

 railway, between supplying customers with patent um- 

 brellas and a patent locomotive .'' All are results of science, 

 and may be products of brains other than those of the 

 vendors. If engineers are able, by vending bridges, rail- 

 ways, and graving docks, to amass in a few years colossal 

 fortunes, as we know they do, what Government help can 

 they need more than the successful cotton lord, or the 

 enterprising grocer, who also manage their business with- 

 out external aid .'' 



This being granted, why, asks the Times, should not 

 the principle of non-intervention be applied to science .' 

 Simply because what is generally understood by the term 

 " Science " is not a remunerative occupation. We do 



