Part 54 (1/2)
I am much obliged to you for your letter. I am sorry to find, however, that the impression, a very erroneous one as I believe, remains upon your mind that the a.s.sistant engineers are predisposed to encourage, or at all events allow, improper conduct on the part either of contractors or the inferior agents of the Company....
From some experience in these matters it is that I have come to the conclusion that it is wise (however strange you may think the doctrine to be) to shut one's ears and eyes really and truly to everything which does not come forward in such a shape as to demand and admit of an enquiry; and it is for this reason also that I do entertain the opinion very strongly (in which you appear to differ from me), that it is not the interest, it is not wise, and therefore only it is not the duty of Directors to look after, or to see into, the smaller details of the conduct of an establishment which, being of a very temporary, changing, and uncertain character, cannot at the best be conducted with the discipline and regularity of a permanent establishment, in which the parties have their clearly defined and unchanging duties, and look forward to the permanent occupation of their places as their means of support.
At all events, when the Directors see anything they think desirable to correct or to modify, they can fully communicate it to me without the possibility of giving to me any soreness of feeling, which it is always desirable not to excite, even in the case of the lowest menial whose best services one wishes to have and use.
III.
December 12, 1851.
With reference to your letter of December 11, stating that the Directors 'are satisfied that great irregularities have existed, and that they feel it to be their duty, and will not hesitate on any occasion, to represent to me any irregularity on the part of my staff that may come to their knowledge,' I am almost afraid, unless in a short note you may have failed to convey to me the meaning of the Directors, that they greatly misunderstand my feelings on the subject; my great desire, as great as, possibly greater than even that of the Directors, who cannot feel so personally responsible as I do for the efficiency of my staff--my great desire I say is to hear immediately from anybody, and particularly of course from a Director, of any supposed irregularity; and I should feel that I had ground of complaint even if any such report or any suspicion of any irregularity were not immediately communicated to me. The moment that the Directors could doubt my being as anxious as they can be to know and to remedy any irregularity, or that they should look upon me in such matters otherwise than as one of themselves, I should feel that I had lost their confidence, and could no longer carry on satisfactorily to myself my duties, and should therefore resign them. Such must, I beg, be our relative position as regards the future; and carrying out this principle as regards the past, I must beg of them to tell me explicitly what are the irregularities to which they refer as having been committed. I ought to be fully informed of such things--indeed, nothing ought to be suspected even without my knowing; for if _I_ ought not to know, who ought?
As a matter of form, and to be strictly correct, I must guard myself against being supposed to mean that I could desire or approve of what the Directors I am sure would also disapprove of--namely, a system of fault-seeking--because in a very numerous staff or body of men, particularly where they have not the benefit of permanent situations, the perfection of regularity cannot be hoped for; what I princ.i.p.ally seek and require of my a.s.sistants is an honest discharge of their duties, and any departure from this it is well known amongst them I never overlook. Have the goodness, therefore, to ascertain for me, and to let me know immediately, what these irregularities have been.
A few words may here be added on Mr. Brunel's practice in reference to taking pupils.
Although many of his a.s.sistants had been his pupils, he did not encourage young men to come to him with the object of learning their profession in his office. He never absolutely declined to take pupils; but he endeavoured, by fixing a high premium, to reduce the number of applicants.
He did not profess to do more for his pupils than to give them the opportunities of seeing work, afforded by his office, and the chance of being afterwards employed as his a.s.sistants. He attached much importance to private study of mathematics and other branches of science.
Pa.s.sing on to the position a.s.sumed by Mr. Brunel in his relations to the profession at large;--it may be stated in a few words, that he was desirous on all occasions of promoting its welfare by encouraging friendly intercourse among its members, by healing strife, by suppressing as far as he could all cant or pretension, and by setting his face steadfastly against all attempts to fetter the freedom of invention or to lessen the independence of engineers by State patronage or control.
It may appear strange to affirm of one who was foremost in almost all the professional contests of his time, that he was zealous in healing strife; but it is nevertheless true that Mr. Brunel, while he was a bold and uncompromising advocate of his own schemes, was at the same time untiring in his exertions to limit the area of controversy, to confine it strictly within its proper bounds, and to divest it of all personality or of anything which could lead to unpleasant feeling or annoyance.
His endeavours to this end were greatly helped by the friendly relations which he maintained at all times with his professional brethren. He never allowed any divergence of opinion to interfere with private friends.h.i.+p; and, even in the height of controversy, he was glad to give, and ready to ask for, advice on matters connected with the scientific departments of civil engineering.
It is but seldom that extracts have been made from Mr. Brunel's private journals; but it may be permitted, in ill.u.s.tration of what has been said on this point, to give the following pa.s.sage, written during the great contests of the year 1846.
May 5, 1846.
I am just returned from spending an evening with R. Stephenson. It is very delightful, in the midst of our incessant personal professional contests, carried to the extreme limit of fair opposition, to meet him on a perfectly friendly footing, and discuss engineering points.... Again I cannot help recording the great pleasure I derive from these occasional though rare meetings.
Mr. Brunel's opinions on the working of the patent laws will be given below, as following more fitly after extracts from his correspondence relating to the position of his profession in regard to the Government; but, before entering upon that subject, a few words may be said in reference to a cla.s.s of persons who formed a very large proportion of his correspondents--the cla.s.s of 'Inventors.'
He used to receive numerous applications from persons who had invented, or who thought they had invented, some useful contrivance, from a locomotive which would save fifty per cent. in fuel over those then in use, to a machine which, as Mr. Brunel a.s.sured its inventor, 'would not even have a tendency to move.' He was always ready to encourage inventions which seemed likely to produce good results, and to enquire into their merits, if they were patented; but not otherwise, lest it should be said that confidence had been placed in him.
The following is one of the many letters he had to write in answer to requests of this nature.
September 17, 1847.
I could not have complied with your request of giving any opinion upon the merits of the invention. Simple as such an act may be, it too frequently involves one in controversy; and I never found, before I made the rule not to give opinions, that my advice was ever followed, if it was to discourage the inventor from further expense and trouble.
I should tell you in this case that the idea of dovetailing, which in your first letter I find was the principle of the invention, had long before been worked out in every shape and form that ingenuity or blundering could possibly give it.
Upon the important question how far, if at all, the practice of civil engineers should be subject to State control, Mr. Brunel held very decided views. He was strongly opposed both to any interference on the part of the State with the freedom of civil engineers in the conduct of their professional work, and to the recognition of merit by the bestowal of honours or rewards.
_On the Royal Commission on the Application of Iron to Railway Structures._[191]