8/8/2019 63b243fb-27df-4048-b431-f140ef41943b

1/5

With the Millennium the Institution of Civil Engineers isapproaching its bicentenary. It was formally founded on2 January 1818. To attempt to summarise its history inone evening is impractical the late Garth Watson tookthree lectures to do justice to the subject twenty yearsago, and much has happened since. The last time it wasdone in a single published presentation was by J H TTudsbery in 1918. I am therefore going to refer you toGarth Watsons official history The Civils, and thecompanion volume The Smeatonians to give you a

reasonably accurate picture. The Civils was precededby the Short History, and papers in the Proceedings inthe 1970s. In addition you should refer to AngusBuchanans The Engineers, a history of the developmentof the engineering profession generally, and ArmytagesSocial History of Engineering. More recently there havebeen the Finniston Inquiry, Grant Jordans reviewEngineers and Profession and Self Regulation, and ofcourse the Fairclough initiative and the Institutionsresponse. For recent events you can refer to the AnnualReports and New Civil Engineer. Hopefully you areconsidering how you want to see the profession develop

in your lifetimes. Since the Cawthra Commissionactivities such as the single member issue and SARTORhave been in the news. Now the Institution is involved insimplifying membership processes (Project Slim),discussing th idea of a super-Institution (project NOVA)and rolling out Tom Foulkes plans to revitalise ICE .Hopefully you yourself are getting involved throughcomments etc..

I am therefore going to concentrate on a few themes.Hopefully these will attract your attention, but if you haveany burning issues, which I have not covered, perhapswe can deal with these at the end.

Firstly why study the history of the Institution at all? Well,for you personally it seems there is a strong financialmotive. You are likely to be paying money to theInstitution for the rest of your lives. You might wellconsider how this state of affairs came about. Moregenerally the Institution is the worlds first professionalengineering body. It has been the model for similarorganisations all over the world, its history is therefore ofinternational importance. It has helped shape thedevelopment of the profession of engineering for nearlytwo hundred years, and the state of the engineering

profession today can be imperfectly understood withoutsome knowledge of the history of the ICEs role. Morecontroversially it is arguable that the Institutionscomplacency about the education and training of itsmembership may have contributed in part to the

relatively poor performance of the British engineeringindustry since its mid-Victorian highpoint.

Why then was the Institution established in the firstplace? One need go no further than the chief movingforce, Henry Robinson Palmer, and his originalresolutions:-

a society be formed, consisting of personsstudying the profession of a civil engineer

to prevent reserve in the junior members ageshould be 20-35

the society shall meet once a week for thepurpose of mutual instruction in that knowledgerequisite for the profession

guidelines for debate would be entered in abook by the Secretary for future discussion,books and invention would be reviewed

people who do not study the profession as ameans of subsistence but devote their leisure tosuch pursuits, may be admitted as honorarymembers

members should be proposed by professionalengineers and seconded by two more, alltestifying to the reasons for their proposal

members could be ejected if they wereunqualified or careless about the interests of theInstitution

etc., etc.,There are two chief points to note:-

1. The prime learned society function of freediscussion on engineering subjects, for themutual benefit of members.

2. The restriction of membership to members of theprofession.

Why then was the Institution set up in 1818? It clearlyanswered a need amongst its initial membership. There

is evidence Palmer had been agitating for such a societysince 1816, and in 1817 a group of engineers wasmeeting as a result of a series of boiler explosions whichwere causing unease in the profession. It is easy toargue its foundation was inevitable in view of the maturity

The Institution of Civil Engineers

LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES

HISTORY OF THE

INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS

1

8/8/2019 63b243fb-27df-4048-b431-f140ef41943b

2/5

of the engineering profession in this country.

Prior to the eighteenth century engineers in Europe hadbeen almost exclusively military men. Although civilengineering work had been carried out before that time,there was no identifiable profession and several of thoseprojects, in England at least, had been engineered byforeigners such as Cornelius Vermuyden, a Dutchseventeenth century drainage engineer. In the

eighteenth century this picture changed across Europe.Early in the eighteenth century an engineering schoolwas set up in Prague, in France in 1747 the forerunner ofthe modern Ponts et Chaussees was established,although in its early years it did little more than providelessons for pupils at the drawing office. By 1818,possibly influenced by the impact of the FrenchRevolution, civil engineering schools existed in Madrid,Paris, St Petersburg, Prague, Berlin and other Germanstates and mining schools existed in France, Russia andeven in Mexico City. Britain was hardly lagging behind.

John Smeaton and one or two of his colleagues began torefer to themselves as civil engineers around 1760.Smeaton came from a legal background, and from thefirst his own practice was distinguished by a code ofprofessional conduct which would be virtuallyindistinguishable from todays. The profession came intobeing largely as a result of the canal and otherimprovements of the late eighteenth century. Many ofthese required local Acts of Parliaments, and the expertevidence, etc., required by engineers brought themtogether to London for the Parliamentary session. Fromthis development arose the Smeatonian Society of CivilEngineers, founded in 1771, as a group of leaders of theprofession who met informally over dinner in theParliamentary session. Although there is some earlyevidence of more technical meetings, and a library ofsorts was built up, the rather restricted membership andinformal nature of the Society meant it was incapable ofmeeting all the needs of a fast growing profession; itsmost substantial legacy was to organise the publicationof Smeatons reports.

While on the continent development were oftenassociated with a government corps of engineers, andthe establishment of engineering schools, these were

absent in the United Kingdom. Although engineeringschools existed for military engineers at Woolwich andAddiscombe Hill, for civil engineers one was restricted towhat science was taught at the very few universities ofthe time, or the various academies such as that whereTelfords collaborator Alexander Nimmo taught. Mostengineers came into the profession from a pupillagesystem one which had been firmly established with theearly engineers like John Grundy, pupil of his father, asurveyor, William Jessop, Smeatons pupil, John Rennie,pupil of Alexander Meikle a millwright. Engineersworking at Boulton & Watts factory were at the forefront

of world engineering technology. It is difficult to knowwhere else they could have better learnt their craft.

Moreover several engineers had, by the standards of theday, the benefit of what education was available. JamesWalker, the Institutions second President, attended

Glasgow University, and only came into engineering as aresult of his uncles work. David McIntosh the son ofHugh McIntosh, one of the first great public workscontractors, attended Glasgow University before havingto abandon his studies due to pressure of work on theEdinburgh and Glasgow Union Canal. Both RobertStephenson and George Parker Bidder attendedEdinburgh University. While it was therefore possible toobtain some kind of academic training, and the

professional practice of British engineering was in manyways ahead of the world, what was notably lacking was aforum for the discussion of ideas, and a state system intowhich the professions status could be institutionalised.

The concept of learned societies was well established bythe eighteenth century, and most towns of any size hadsuch groups. Generally speaking they lacked anyprofessional focus. National societies, most famous theRoyal Society of London, were well established, but itsactivities could not hope to deal with all the disciplines ofscientific endeavour in a fast changing society. The

establishment of the Institution can thus be seen assomething of its time. It was also founded around thetime that the Mechanics Institute movement got started -a conscious attempt to raise the educational standards ofthe growing number of mechanics and engineers bymutual instruction, etc. What did distinguish theInstitution, however, was its concept of being aprofessional body, whereas other societies weregenerally open to anybody with an interest in science,etc., or else were restrictive by methods of election as atthe Royal Society. Other professions were seeking toestablish themselves at the same time the LawSociety, for example.

The foundation of the Institution was an inevitable resultof the development of the profession at that time, and theprofessional element distinguished it from othersocieties. What it failed to be was a great success.

Mechanics Institute were really the movement of the1820s, and the Institutions membership grew veryslowly. What did happen however was that in 1820, togive the Society new impetus Thomas Telford wasinvited to be President, and moreover accepted. Telfordwas one of the leading civil engineers of the time, and

after the death of John Rennie in 1821, probably theleading engineer in the country until his own death in1834. Telford had political and society contacts andknew many of the profession personally. He regularlyintroduced new members, some from overseas, tomeetings, and most important of all, in 1828, wassuccessful in obtaining for the Institution its RoyalCharter, which gave it status as the leader of theprofession which was unchallenged for nearly onehundred years.

Despite the success of the Charter the Institution grew

very slowly. One suspects that perhaps less than 25%of civil engineers active before 1850 were members, bythe end of the century it was perhaps 90% It had nopermanent secretariat. In its early years it rented roomsfor meetings, not having a building of its own until 1833when it occupied 1 Cannon Row. Its meetings and

2

8/8/2019 63b243fb-27df-4048-b431-f140ef41943b

3/5

discussions were of very uneven quality and quantity,and were mostly unpublished. Although some mentionsappeared in the Repertory of Patent Inventionsand theAthenaeum, for those outside the central hub of theInstitution there were little evidence of its existence forthe first fifteen years. The next phase in developmentfollowed Telfords death, which paradoxically put theInstitution in a stronger financial position. The newPresident James Walker was determined to raise the

profile of the Institution, and, under his Presidency apermanent Secretary Charles Manby was appointed inMarch 1839, and a permanent home acquired in GreatGeorge Street. More importantly the vexed problem ofpublications was solved initially by a deal with thetechnical publisher John Weale, who agreed to publishthe Transactions which first appeared in 1836. Thisrapidly proved a lengthy and expensive business and in1837 the first volume of Minutes of Proceedings inabstracts of papers read in the previous session waspublished. They superseded the Transactionsafter 1842because of costs. Even then the problems were not

over, and for many years the Minutes were late; andAnnual Reports were full of problems of punctualpublication.

As the publications appeared so also did changes in by-laws which from 1841 insisted on pupillage as a civilengineer and five years employment in a position ofresponsibility to become a member, although it waspossible to come in on a more mature route of five yearspractice and considerable eminence. These changeshad been a long time in coming.

The Institution can be seen to have acquired its matureform at this time the early 1840s, and this was reflectedin the deposition of James Walker as President in 1845.Walker had felt he would, like Telford, serve for life - butother members felt this was stifling the Institution and theambition of younger members. There was somesuggestion that Walker may have professionallybenefited from his position, but Walker was verygenerous to the Institution, and very bitter about histreatment. However, biennial, and later annualPresidencies were indicative of a more mature body, lessreliant on the prestige of an individual member.

Walker particularly fell out with Manby. Charles Manby iswell known for his role as the first permanent full timeSecretary, but he was heavily involved with otherbusiness interests, with Robert Stephenson andCompany, and in the theatrical world. Manby was the11

thSecretary who had held the post. His predecessor,

Thomas Webster began the reorganisation of publicationbusiness and publications. My own feeling is that it wasin fact James Forrest, Manbys successor, who joinedthe staff in 1850 on a temporary basis, who establishedthe administrative side of the Institution on a professionalfooting. Before his arrival for thirty years there had been

no library catalogue, and publications were in arrears.By the mid-1860s the Institution was prosperous, wellorganised, and the worlds premier engineeringorganisation. Forrest was in a fortunate position ofknowing all the Presidents of the 19th century, exceptTelford, and was probably unchallenged in power in the

1890s. He had a very great influence on the design ofthe new building of that time and exercised a dead handover much of his successors activity.

The Institutions maturity in the 1840s coincided with therailway age, and the railways brought prestige to themembership and wealth to the Institution, which was theirsociety. The prestige of the Institution was recognised inits role in the organisation of the Great Exhibition, where

the President placed a crucial role in the design anderection. Perceptions of the Institutions success led toother societies being established on similar lines andover the world from the 1840s onwards. Overseas, inthe colonies in particular, Institution members wouldthemselves be involved. The rather hesitant start of theInstitution itself was forgotten. The foundation of theInstitution of Mechanical Engineers (1847) was inmarked contrast to that of the Institution of CivilEngineers, they had one hundred and seven members inthe first year, immediately started publishing theirproceedings, and George Stephenson became the first

President. From the start it was a society with a basis inthe Midlands and North, and no real intention ofchallenging the primacy of the Institution, but came to doso by its rapid growth, an inevitable result of the growthof mechanical engineering as seen particularly inprofessional engineers required to design and maintainmachinery in workshops, a feature of the railway age.Before then an engineer often needed only act as aconsultant. By the end of the century it was aprofessional body to be reckoned with. The Telegraph(Electrical) Engineers were another great success. Theproblems this presented in terms of a unified professionhad been realised from the start by a few such asIsambard Kingdom Brunel, but the Institution looked onsuch societies as junior specialisations, and nurturedtheir growth, without considerations for the futureproblems this might cause.

This complacency, borne of the success and prestige ofthe Institution in the second half of the nineteenthcentury, is most clearly seen in the attitude of theInstitution to the education of engineers. Although voicescould be heard lamenting the ignorance of Britishengineers of a more scientific approach to engineering,typical of the continental system, even when a survey

was carried out in the late 1860s on the education of civilengineers, it was felt the British emphasis on practicalinstruction was best. While the system could not beseen to be failing in terms of disasters befalling thepublic, there was no real quality control of the pupillagesystem, which could not hope to meet the challenge offuture international competition. British civil engineersrelied on the closed nature of the colonial marketsencircling the globe, and the tremendous technologicallead of the first half of the century. After 1850, Germanyin particular closed the gap, their more systematiceducation system put their engineers in a stronger

position to turn scientific advances into engineeringpractice. Meanwhile the Institution actively opposed theestablishment of an engineering college at Coopers Hillfor engineers to work in the government service in India.They felt it was sufficient to be a pupil of a member.When one reads that Proby Cautley, the engineer

3

8/8/2019 63b243fb-27df-4048-b431-f140ef41943b

4/5

responsible in India for the Doab and Ganges canal inthe first half of the century, had a partial translation of aFrench work on hydraulics as his only guidance one cansee why the government had acted. Eventually theInstitution had to act too. In 1887 it was decided from1889 students would have to demonstrate knowledge ofa general education. Problems in assessingqualifications of this nature led to the setting ofexaminations similar to general school

certificate/matriculation tests. Since 1879 there hadbeen two grades of corporate membership: AssociateMember (Member) and Member (Fellow). To judge thesuitability of the knowledge they had acquired for theprofession it was decided from 1897 to introduceprofessional examinations, from which exemption couldbe sought for part with engineering degrees. Furtherdiscussion followed, leading in 1914 to the introduction ofthe concept of training under agreement. Since that timethe Institutions entrance qualifications have setstandards which have been the envy of the world, withtheir continued emphasis on academic and practical

skills. If one looks at the development of theexaminations, in early years they were equivalent tostandard school examinations, which were not generallyavailable. As well as sciences they included languagesand humanities. In an engineering sense the mostinteresting aspect is that they included electrical andmechanical engineering, as well as other disciplines.This comprehensive approach was not really ended untilthe establishment of the CEI and their examinations in1967. The distinctive feature of an oral examination,which had been introduced in 1919, was graduallymodified from a discussion of a candidates drawings tothe professional review of today.

A major feature of the Institutions work has been itsinvolvement in engineering standard its learned societyrole. In the mid-nineteenth century it was seenprotesting to the Board of Trade when a bridge designedby Sir John Fowler Torksey Bridge was not passedfor public traffic by the Inspecting Engineer, allegedlybecause he did not understand the design principles.The Institution supported Fowler, and the right of itsmembers to design structures by appropriate methods, ina sense fighting rigid standards. However, the value ofstandards was recognised early on. One of the first

published papers was that by Whitworth on screwthreads, itself the development of another early member.Maudslay. In 1901 the Institution was a prime movewith IMechE, IEE, RINA and ISI in setting up EngineeringStandards, which developed into BSI. Likewise researchwas sponsored, into internal combustion engines, steamengines and boilers, sea action (corrosion) Researchlaboratories such as the National Physical Laboratory,and the Hydraulics Research Station were Institutioninitiatives. CIRIA also stemmed from the InstitutionsResearch Committee.

It is easy to overlook the Institutions role in theestablishment of now separate organisations, but theyprovide a clear demonstration of how the ICE hasshaped the engineering world of today. Likewise in thesector of public safety, following the dam failure atDolgarrog in 1925 the Institution was instrumental in

establishing reservoir safety standards, which theyprovided a vital role in improving in the 1970s. As anInstitution here is a tradition in which its membership cantake pride. It is arguable that the failure, however, to takethe initiative with new engineering advances has led tothe fragmentation of the profession. This is perhapsmost clearly seen in the case of the introduction ofreinforced concrete and steel frame construction at thestart of the century. Engineers and others involved in

this field set up a Concrete Institute, which developedinto the Institution of Structural Engineers, when a morepositive approach from the Institution than its neutralreport of 1910 on concrete might have stymied such adevelopment.

The premises of the Institution have been few. Earlymeetings were held in Coffee Houses around the Strand,then rooms were taken at 15 Buckingham Street, nearCharing Cross Station. These were changed for 1Cannon Row in January 1833, and shortly after 25 GreatGeorge Street, where from 1839 until 1910 the Institution

had its home, in a street full of civil engineers. Thepremises were gradually enlarged, to deal with thegrowing demands on the lecture theatre and the growthof the library. Building work was carried out in 1846,1868 and 1872. As senior members like RobertStephenson died the Institution became wealthier due totheir generosity and by mid-1887 they had been ablethrough the generosity of Robert Stephenson andCompany, and Whitworth to acquire the freeholds of 24-26 Great George Street. In 1894 a new building wasbuilt, and when opened in November 1895 five hundredand ninety eight people attended Benjamin Bakerslecture. The building had many features of the existingbuilding, including the same panelling and library design,but it was short-lived. It was compulsorily purchased,and the present site offered in compensation in 1908-1909. This building designed by James Miller wasoccupied on 4 November 1913. It was an early steelframe on which a member Huddleston acted asconsultant for the Institution. The building was of veryhigh quality materials, and remained substantiallyunaltered until the 1930s, when its North West cornerwas completed when 1 Great George Street wasdemolished. The cost of the building was a debt to theInstitution until 1939, due to the effects of the depression

and the unwillingness to increase subscriptions. After thewar the growth of membership and services put anincreasing strain on the building. This was met in part bytaking further office space when the magazine New CivilEngineerwas launched in the 1970s, but the costs of amajor refurbishment of Great George Street was toointimidating until Gwilym Roberts was able to findsufficient support for action among senior members inthe early 1980s.

It seems to me that the symbol of change in thedevelopment of the Institution was the launch of New

Civil Engineer in 1972. Until then an outsider wouldhave detected little change from the attitudes of theEdwardian period. The welcoming attitude of theInstitution today owes much to changes initiated byGarth Watson at that time, and the way staff andSecretaries since then, with members support, have

4

8/8/2019 63b243fb-27df-4048-b431-f140ef41943b

5/5

been able to drive the Institution towards the newmillennium. The rapid development of services on theInternet is an indication of the pace of change is notslacking. I can tell you it did not seem likely to me 20years ago!

5