Page:Professional Papers on Indian Engineering Volume 2 (1865).pdf/16



several of the earliest and most distinguished Civil Engineers in England were men of little or no education, was for a long time alleged as a proof of the inutility of a scholastic training for the young Civil Engineer. It can scarcely, however, be necessary to refute such an argument now-a-days, nor would it ever have been put forth if the distinction between the theory and practice of any profession had been attended to. A theoretical Engineer is neither more nor less valuable than a theoretical Doctor or Lawyer, and in all three cases the value of a scientific training in the principles of each profession is justly regarded as an indispensable preliminary to the actual practice of it. It is often, however, alleged with a greater show of truth that this preliminary education can be acquired better in Workshops than in a College. Each doubtless has its advantages; the information acquired in the former is more practical, but is necessarily more special; in the latter it covers more ground and is likely to be more generally useful. In England, where the sub-division of labor has been carried to an almost in definite extent, a man rarely attains eminence in any calling who does not confine himself to some special branch of it, and for the generality of men, even the early training must be special if only from economical considerations. But in a country like India, where the Engineer may have to do the work of half a dozen different men at once, or may constantly have to exchange one kind of work for another, the education required is altogether different, and it may safely be said that, at any rate for the wants of Government, it will best be supplied by a Civil Engineering College.