This perhaps is more strongly the case in the United Kingdom than elsewhere, for there it has been the custom, where work involving machinery or engineering construction of any magnitude was required by those who were not themselves engineers, to obtain advice as to the best way to obtain the ends in view, and the best engineering designs to employ, from lead ing members of the appropriate branch of the profession practicing as consultants. There has thus grown up a body of engineers whose function is to give this advice and draw up the instructions upon which tenders can be ob tained from engineers who undertake the con struction of the works or machinery involved. Much misconception has arisen in America and elsewhere as to the foundation and value of this method. The consultant is in a position of trust between his non-engineering client and the manufacturer. By clearly defining the re quirements of his client, after investigating all the conditions of the problem, he enables com peting contractors to estimate their prices upon a fair and uniform basis. On the one hand his duty is to see that his client obtains the best installation and that which most satisfactorily fulfils the conditions of the problem on rea sonable terms; on the other he sees that no competing manufacturing or contracting firm is unfairly handicapped by a misunderstanding of the problem and by the unfair competition of a rival. Further, his duty is to see that the chosen contractor is not unfairly dealt with owing to the ignorance of engineering pos sibilities or limitations on the part of his client.
In this capacity, as arbitrator and adviser, the highest qualifications of judgment, inde pendence, integrity, and justice are required of the engineer, and it is of the highest importance that the ranks should be kept purged of any who may usurp these functions without the necessary qualifications and bring discredit upon the profession as a whole. Here statu tory powers of control and regulation by a pro fessional body are pre-eminently needed.
Educational Organization.— On this ques tion a brief word must suffice. Engineering schools were first established in London at King's College and University College in the first half of the 19th century. These have been followed by the establishment of other schools in the provinces and in London until a large number now exist in which the scientific bases of engineering are taught in an organized course lasting in general for three years. During that
course engineering laboratory training at most schools occupies a large portion of the time. Experimental determinations of the efficiencies of various machines and prime movers work ing under varying conditions, the strength and properties of materials, flow of liquids, etc., are undertaken by the students, and the underlying scientific laws deduced and exemplified.
In some schools engineering manufacturing processes are also taught and workshop train ing undertaken, but in the United Kingdom it has generally been held that this branch of training is best obtained in the factories of manufacturing firms, and this is the method ad vocated by the Institution of Civil Engineers.
The University of London has an engineer ing faculty and grants degrees in science (en gineering), and the University of Cambridge has a mechanical science tripos as an avenue to its degrees in arts.
The provincial universities all grant degrees in science on the engineering side. Dublin and Liverpool alone grant a degree in engineerin .
The principle upon which such as distinct from °science') degrees are generally held to be unsound in Great Britain is that the practical, which is an essential portion of an engineer's training, can not be rightly regulated orjudged by an academic body. A professional body such as the Institution of Civil Engineers is alone competent to co-ordinate the two por tions of the professional education.
Bibliography.— Brassey (Lord),