The Institution of Civil Engineers
LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES
HISTORY OF THE
INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
With the Millennium the Institution of Civil Engineers is
approaching its bicentenary. It was formally founded on
2 January 1818. To attempt to summarise its history in
one evening is impractical – the late Garth Watson took
three lectures to do justice to the subject twenty years
ago, and much has happened since. The last time it was
done in a single published presentation was by J H T
Tudsbery in 1918. I am therefore going to refer you to
Garth Watson’s official history The Civils, and the
companion volume The Smeatonians to give you a
reasonably accurate picture. The Civils was preceded
by the Short History, and papers in the Proceedings in
the 1970s. In addition you should refer to Angus
Buchanan’s The Engineers, a history of the development
of the engineering profession generally, and Armytage’s
Social History of Engineering. More recently there have
been the Finniston Inquiry, Grant Jordan’s review
Engineers and Profession and Self Regulation, and of
course the Fairclough initiative and the Institution’s
response. For recent events you can refer to the Annual
Reports and New Civil Engineer. Hopefully you are
considering how you want to see the profession develop
in your lifetimes. Since the Cawthra Commission
activities such as the single member issue and SARTOR
have been in the news. Now the Institution is involved in
simplifying 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 through
comments etc..
I am therefore going to concentrate on a few themes.
Hopefully these will attract your attention, but if you have
any burning issues, which I have not covered, perhaps
we 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 financial
motive. You are likely to be paying money to the
Institution for the rest of your lives. You might well
consider how this state of affairs came about. More
generally the Institution is the world’s first professional
engineering body. It has been the model for similar
organisations all over the world, its history is therefore of
international importance. It has helped shape the
development of the profession of engineering for nearly
two hundred years, and the state of the engineering
profession today can be imperfectly understood without
some knowledge of the history of the ICE’s role. More
controversially it is arguable that the Institution’s
complacency about the education and training of its
membership may have contributed in part to the
1
relatively poor performance of the British engineering
industry since its mid-Victorian highpoint.
Why then was the Institution established in the first
place? One need go no further than the chief moving
force, Henry Robinson Palmer, and his original
resolutions:-
• a society be formed, consisting of persons
studying the profession of a civil engineer
• to prevent reserve in the junior members age
should be 20-35
• the society shall meet once a week for the
purpose of mutual instruction in that knowledge
requisite for the profession
• guidelines for debate would be entered in a
book by the Secretary for future discussion,
books and invention would be reviewed
• people who do not study the profession as a
means of subsistence but devote their leisure to
such pursuits, may be admitted as honorary
members
• members should be proposed by professional
engineers and seconded by two more, all
testifying to the reasons for their proposal
• members could be ejected if they were
unqualified or careless about the interests of the
Institution
etc., etc.,
There are two chief points to note:-
1. The prime learned society function of free
discussion on engineering subjects, for the
mutual benefit of members.
2. The restriction of membership to members of the
profession.
Why then was the Institution set up in 1818? It clearly
answered a need amongst its initial membership. There
is evidence Palmer had been agitating for such a society
since 1816, and in 1817 a group of engineers was
meeting as a result of a series of boiler explosions which
were causing unease in the profession. It is easy to
argue its foundation was inevitable in view of the maturity
of the engineering profession in this country.
Prior to the eighteenth century engineers in Europe had
been almost exclusively military men. Although civil
engineering work had been carried out before that time,
there was no identifiable profession and several of those
projects, in England at least, had been engineered by
foreigners such as Cornelius Vermuyden, a Dutch
seventeenth century drainage engineer. In the
eighteenth century this picture changed across Europe.
Early in the eighteenth century an engineering school
was set up in Prague, in France in 1747 the forerunner of
the modern Ponts et Chaussees was established,
although in its early years it did little more than provide
lessons for pupils at the drawing office. By 1818,
possibly influenced by the impact of the French
Revolution, civil engineering schools existed in Madrid,
Paris, St Petersburg, Prague, Berlin and other German
states and mining schools existed in France, Russia and
even in Mexico City. Britain was hardly lagging behind.
John Smeaton and one or two of his colleagues began to
refer to themselves as civil engineers around 1760.
Smeaton came from a legal background, and from the
first his own practice was distinguished by a code of
professional conduct which would be virtually
indistinguishable from todays. The profession came into
being largely as a result of the canal and other
improvements of the late eighteenth century. Many of
these required local Acts of Parliaments, and the expert
evidence, etc., required by engineers brought them
together to London for the Parliamentary session. From
this development arose the Smeatonian Society of Civil
Engineers, founded in 1771, as a group of leaders of the
profession who met informally over dinner in the
Parliamentary session. Although there is some early
evidence of more technical meetings, and a library of
sorts was built up, the rather restricted membership and
informal nature of the Society meant it was incapable of
meeting all the needs of a fast growing profession; its
most substantial legacy was to organise the publication
of Smeaton’s reports.
While on the continent development were often
associated with a government corps of engineers, and
the establishment of engineering schools, these were
absent in the United Kingdom. Although engineering
schools existed for military engineers at Woolwich and
Addiscombe Hill, for civil engineers one was restricted to
what science was taught at the very few universities of
the time, or the various ‘academies’ such as that where
Telford’s collaborator Alexander Nimmo taught. Most
engineers came into the profession from a pupillage
system – one which had been firmly established with the
early engineers like John Grundy, pupil of his father, a
surveyor, William Jessop, Smeaton’s pupil, John Rennie,
pupil of Alexander Meikle a millwright. Engineers
working at Boulton & Watt’s factory were at the forefront
of world engineering technology. It is difficult to know
where else they could have better learnt their craft.
Moreover several engineers had, by the standards of the
day, the benefit of what education was available. James
Walker, the Institution’s second President, attended
2
Glasgow University, and only came into engineering as a
result of his uncle’s work. David McIntosh the son of
Hugh McIntosh, one of the first great public works
contractors, attended Glasgow University before having
to abandon his studies due to pressure of work on the
Edinburgh and Glasgow Union Canal. Both Robert
Stephenson and George Parker Bidder attended
Edinburgh University. While it was therefore possible to
obtain some kind of academic training, and the
professional practice of British engineering was in many
ways ahead of the world, what was notably lacking was a
forum for the discussion of ideas, and a state system into
which the profession’s status could be institutionalised.
The concept of learned societies was well established by
the eighteenth century, and most towns of any size had
such groups. Generally speaking they lacked any
professional focus. National societies, most famous the
Royal Society of London, were well established, but its
activities could not hope to deal with all the disciplines of
scientific endeavour in a fast changing society. The
establishment of the Institution can thus be seen as
something of its time. It was also founded around the
time that the Mechanics Institute movement got started -
a conscious attempt to raise the educational standards of
the growing number of mechanics and engineers by
mutual instruction, etc. What did distinguish the
Institution, however, was its concept of being a
professional body, whereas other societies were
generally open to anybody with an interest in science,
etc., or else were restrictive by methods of election as at
the Royal Society. Other professions were seeking to
establish themselves at the same time – the Law
Society, for example.
The foundation of the Institution was an inevitable result
of the development of the profession at that time, and the
professional element distinguished it from other
societies. What it failed to be was a great success.
Mechanics Institute were really the movement of the
1820s, and the Institution’s membership grew very
slowly. What did happen however was that in 1820, to
give the Society new impetus Thomas Telford was
invited to be President, and moreover accepted. Telford
was one of the leading civil engineers of the time, and
after the death of John Rennie in 1821, probably the
leading engineer in the country until his own death in
1834. Telford had political and society contacts and
knew many of the profession personally. He regularly
introduced new members, some from overseas, to
meetings, and most important of all, in 1828, was
successful in obtaining for the Institution its Royal
Charter, which gave it status as the leader of the
profession which was unchallenged for nearly one
hundred 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, by
the end of the century it was perhaps 90% It had no
permanent secretariat. In its early years it rented rooms
for meetings, not having a building of its own until 1833
when it occupied 1 Cannon Row. Its meetings and
discussions were of very uneven quality and quantity,
and were mostly unpublished. Although some mentions
appeared in the Repertory of Patent Inventions and the
Athenaeum, for those outside the central hub of the
Institution there were little evidence of its existence for
the first fifteen years. The next phase in development
followed Telford’s death, which paradoxically put the
Institution in a stronger financial position. The new
President James Walker was determined to raise the
profile of the Institution, and, under his Presidency a
permanent Secretary Charles Manby was appointed in
March 1839, and a permanent home acquired in Great
George Street. More importantly the vexed problem of
publications was solved – initially by a deal with the
technical publisher John Weale, who agreed to publish
the Transactions which first appeared in 1836. This
rapidly proved a lengthy and expensive business and in
1837 the first volume of Minutes of Proceedings in
abstracts of papers read in the previous session was
published. They superseded the Transactions after 1842
because of costs. Even then the problems were not
over, and for many years the Minutes were late; and
Annual Reports were full of problems of punctual
publication.
As the publications appeared so also did changes in by-
laws which from 1841 insisted on pupillage as a civil
engineer and five years employment in a position of
responsibility to become a member, although it was
possible to come in on a more mature route of five years
practice and ‘considerable eminence’. These changes
had been a long time in coming.
The Institution can be seen to have acquired its mature
form at this time – the early 1840s, and this was reflected
in the deposition of James Walker as President in 1845.
Walker had felt he would, like Telford, serve for life - but
other members felt this was stifling the Institution and the
ambition of younger members. There was some
suggestion that Walker may have professionally
benefited from his position, but Walker was very
generous to the Institution, and very bitter about his
treatment. However, biennial, and later annual
Presidencies were indicative of a more mature body, less
reliant on the prestige of an individual member.
Walker particularly fell out with Manby. Charles Manby is
well known for his role as the first permanent full time
Secretary, but he was heavily involved with other
business interests, with Robert Stephenson and
Company, and in the theatrical world. Manby was the
th
11 Secretary who had held the post. His predecessor,
Thomas Webster began the reorganisation of publication
business and publications. My own feeling is that it was
in fact James Forrest, Manby’s successor, who joined
the staff in 1850 on a temporary basis, who established
the administrative side of the Institution on a professional
footing. 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, well
organised, and the world’s premier engineering
organisation. Forrest was in a fortunate position of
knowing all the Presidents of the 19th century, except
Telford, and was probably unchallenged in power in the
3
1890’s. He had a very great influence on the design of
the new building of that time and exercised a dead hand
over much of his successor’s activity.
The Institution’s maturity in the 1840s coincided with the
railway age, and the railways brought prestige to the
membership and wealth to the Institution, which was their
society. The prestige of the Institution was recognised in
its role in the organisation of the Great Exhibition, where
the President placed a crucial role in the design and
erection. Perceptions of the Institution’s success led to
other societies being established on similar lines and
over the world from the 1840s onwards. Overseas, in
the colonies in particular, Institution members would
themselves be involved. The rather hesitant start of the
Institution itself was forgotten. The foundation of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers (1847) was in
marked contrast to that of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, they had one hundred and seven members in
the first year, immediately started publishing their
proceedings, and George Stephenson became the first
President. From the start it was a society with a basis in
the Midlands and North, and no real intention of
challenging the primacy of the Institution, but came to do
so by its rapid growth, an inevitable result of the growth
of mechanical engineering as seen particularly in
professional engineers required to design and maintain
machinery in workshops, a feature of the railway age.
Before then an engineer often needed only act as a
consultant. By the end of the century it was a
professional body to be reckoned with. The Telegraph
(Electrical) Engineers were another great success. The
problems this presented in terms of a unified profession
had been realised from the start by a few such as
Isambard Kingdom Brunel, but the Institution looked on
such societies as junior specialisations, and nurtured
their growth, without considerations for the future
problems this might cause.
This complacency, borne of the success and prestige of
the Institution in the second half of the nineteenth
century, is most clearly seen in the attitude of the
Institution to the education of engineers. Although voices
could be heard lamenting the ignorance of British
engineers 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 civil
engineers, it was felt the British emphasis on practical
instruction was best. While the system could not be
seen to be failing in terms of disasters befalling the
public, there was no real quality control of the pupillage
system, which could not hope to meet the challenge of
future international competition. British civil engineers
relied on the closed nature of the colonial markets
encircling the globe, and the tremendous technological
lead of the first half of the century. After 1850, Germany
in particular closed the gap, their more systematic
education system put their engineers in a stronger
position to turn scientific advances into engineering
practice. Meanwhile the Institution actively opposed the
establishment of an engineering college at Coopers Hill
for 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
responsible in India for the Doab and Ganges canal in
the first half of the century, had a partial translation of a
French work on hydraulics as his only guidance one can
see why the government had acted. Eventually the
Institution had to act too. In 1887 it was decided from
1889 students would have to demonstrate knowledge of
a general education. Problems in assessing
qualifications of this nature led to the setting of
examinations similar to general school
certificate/matriculation tests. Since 1879 there had
been two grades of corporate membership: Associate
Member (Member) and Member (Fellow). To judge the
suitability of the knowledge they had acquired for the
profession it was decided from 1897 to introduce
‘professional’ examinations, from which exemption could
be sought for part with engineering degrees. Further
discussion followed, leading in 1914 to the introduction of
the concept of training under agreement. Since that time
the Institution’s entrance qualifications have set
standards which have been the envy of the world, with
their continued emphasis on academic and practical
skills. If one looks at the development of the
examinations, in early years they were equivalent to
standard school examinations, which were not generally
available. As well as sciences they included languages
and humanities. In an engineering sense the most
interesting aspect is that they included electrical and
mechanical engineering, as well as other disciplines.
This comprehensive approach was not really ended until
the establishment of the CEI and their examinations in
1967. The distinctive feature of an oral examination,
which had been introduced in 1919, was gradually
modified from a discussion of a candidate’s drawings to
the professional review of today.
A major feature of the Institution’s work has been its
involvement in engineering standard – its learned society
role. In the mid-nineteenth century it was seen
protesting to the Board of Trade when a bridge designed
by Sir John Fowler – Torksey Bridge – was not passed
for public traffic by the Inspecting Engineer, allegedly
because he did not understand the design principles.
The Institution supported Fowler, and the right of its
members to design structures by appropriate methods, in
a sense fighting rigid standards. However, the value of
standards was recognised early on. One of the first
published papers was that by Whitworth on screw
threads, itself the development of another early member.
Maudslay. In 1901 the Institution was a prime move
with IMechE, IEE, RINA and ISI in setting up Engineering
Standards, which developed into BSI. Likewise research
was sponsored, into internal combustion engines, steam
engines and boilers, sea action (corrosion) Research
laboratories such as the National Physical Laboratory,
and the Hydraulics Research Station were Institution
initiatives. CIRIA also stemmed from the Institution’s
Research Committee.
It is easy to overlook the Institution’s role in the
establishment of now separate organisations, but they
provide a clear demonstration of how the ICE has
shaped the engineering world of today. Likewise in the
sector of public safety, following the dam failure at
Dolgarrog in 1925 the Institution was instrumental in
4
establishing reservoir safety standards, which they
provided a vital role in improving in the 1970s. As an
Institution here is a tradition in which its membership can
take pride. It is arguable that the failure, however, to take
the initiative with new engineering advances has led to
the fragmentation of the profession. This is perhaps
most clearly seen in the case of the introduction of
reinforced concrete and steel frame construction at the
start of the century. Engineers and others involved in
this field set up a Concrete Institute, which developed
into the Institution of Structural Engineers, when a more
positive approach from the Institution than its neutral
report of 1910 on concrete might have stymied such a
development.
The premises of the Institution have been few. Early
meetings were held in Coffee Houses around the Strand,
then rooms were taken at 15 Buckingham Street, near
Charing Cross Station. These were changed for 1
Cannon Row in January 1833, and shortly after 25 Great
George Street, where from 1839 until 1910 the Institution
had its home, in a street full of civil engineers. The
premises were gradually enlarged, to deal with the
growing demands on the lecture theatre and the growth
of the library. Building work was carried out in 1846,
1868 and 1872. As senior members like Robert
Stephenson died the Institution became wealthier due to
their generosity and by mid-1887 they had been able
through the generosity of Robert Stephenson and
Company, and Whitworth to acquire the freeholds of 24-
26 Great George Street. In 1894 a new building was
built, and when opened in November 1895 five hundred
and ninety eight people attended Benjamin Baker’s
lecture. The building had many features of the existing
building, 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 was
occupied on 4 November 1913. It was an early steel
frame on which a member Huddleston acted as
consultant for the Institution. The building was of very
high quality materials, and remained substantially
unaltered until the 1930s, when its North West corner
was completed when 1 Great George Street was
demolished. The cost of the building was a debt to the
Institution until 1939, due to the effects of the depression
and the unwillingness to increase subscriptions. After the
war the growth of membership and services put an
increasing strain on the building. This was met in part by
taking further office space when the magazine New Civil
Engineer was launched in the 1970s, but the costs of a
major refurbishment of Great George Street was too
intimidating until Gwilym Roberts was able to find
sufficient support for action among senior members in
the early 1980s.
It seems to me that the symbol of change in the
development of the Institution was the launch of New
Civil Engineer in 1972. Until then an outsider would
have detected little change from the attitudes of the
Edwardian period. The welcoming attitude of the
Institution today owes much to changes initiated by
Garth Watson at that time, and the way staff and
Secretaries since then, with members’ support, have
been able to drive the Institution towards the new
millennium. The rapid development of services on the
Internet is an indication of the pace of change is not
slacking. I can tell you it did not seem likely to me 20
years ago!