[Continued.

time if you do not admit these men, what will you do?-They can come in now, if they are fully qualified architects, and can pass the examinations.

820. At the present moment there is no protection at all, they may take them into their society, but at the same time any Tom, Dick and Harry can describe himself as an architect ?-Quite true; exactly as we feel about Civil Engineers; bell hangers may call themselves civil engineers, and nobody can stop them.

821. You would agree that it is desirable that there should be some State qualification laid down?-We have not the slightest objection to that, provided that it is laid down for Architects, and not sweeping somebody else into the fold.

822. There again you will agree with me that there may be as little difference between the Civil Engineer and an architect as there is between a physician and a surgeon. I mean they are both practising practically the same thing, but different branches of it? No, I do not follow that; it is too deep for me. 823. Still they have managed to solve all their difficulties, and have a registration council set up by which every man must have a minimum qualification?—I think that is quite a different thing. You are dealing with human creatures; we are dealing with structures.

824. Take the dentists. When the Dentists Registration Bill was passed, any man who could prove that he had been in possession of a pair of forceps and an old tooth for a few years was ipso facto taken to be registered?—If you are starting a new Institution there is always that stage at the beginning when you must take in men that the Council of that Institution consider are suitable for the Institution; but that is not this case at all. The architects have been established for a long period, and now they come in and try and draw in, sweep in from the outside, some people who are certainly not qualified in my judgment to come in as registered architects, what I should call architectural assistants. A lot of architectural assistants to-day are ladies, and they do the ornamental perspective drawing, very ably, they do it, too. Now, if they have been five years at that, they can come in and call themselves registered architects, and they can demand it under this.

825. But eventually they will die out, of course?—Yes; well I shall be gone before that time comes.

826. I suppose really, finally you have no objection at all to the registration of architects?-I think registration is quite a useful thing to have under proper regulations.

827. And under that registration they should have the power to prevent any persons who did not pass the qualifying examinations-they should not be

allowed to assume the title of registered architect? Yes, and that could be done in one clause, the whole of that without all the uncertainties.

Mr. William Hirst.

828. I would like to ask Sir Charles this: In paragraph 1 you are good enough to state the inception of your Institution. Can we take it that out of these 10,000 members you have, there are a small number of people who are engaged in the architectural profession? -They may call themselves architects afterwards, but if any man practised as or called himself an architect at the time he was up for election, he would not have been elected to our Institution. He is an architect, and let him be an architect; but there are people in the country who have been elected to our Institution as associate members, or it may even be members, and I believe in the provinces some of them do call themselves architects.

829. But is it within your knowledge that you may have duplicate members of both? We have none as far as I know unless Engineers have been admitted as Architects by the R.I.B.A. If they first came to us and said that they were Fellows of the Royal Institute of British Architects and practised as architects they would not be elected to our Institution as corporate members.

Chairman.

830. You have an examination of your own? Yes, but an engineer of eminence can be elected to the higher grade of full membership without an examination. 831. But you especially exclude architects from your profession?—Yes.

Colonel Moore.

832. Then is not an architect qualified to sit for your examination ?-No, not if he is an architect.

[Continued.

Mr. William Hirst.

$33. May I ask you, Sir Charles, just to explain a little more fully paragraph 21 in your précis; it has reference of course to the Institution of Structural Engineers. Have you any information regarding that body?—They are quite a new body largely composed of Architects and Surveyors, and including, I believe, about 450 members of the Royal Institute of British Architects.

834. What is the total number may I ask? (Mr. Spear.) It is about 3,000 I think. (Sir Charles Morgan.) In that to my knowledge they have men who are Clerks of the Works, Inspectors, Architects and Structural Engineers they call themselves. The genesis of that Institution was that they were called the Concrete Institution and a very useful purpose they served them in concrete work. Then they got a little bit bigger and called themselves Structural Engineers. Now, they are at the moment, if I may put it, applying for a charter as Structural Engineers. The Civil engineers are opposing it. We say if there are structural engineers in this world, it is the Civil Engineers and there is no need for a second charter.

835. So on that point, you would be opposed to the Royal Institute of British Architects as regards the application for a Charter?-Yes, that is so.

Colonel Moore.

836. Sir Charles, I notice in paragraph 22 of your précis that you say that your council have decided to show complete opposition to the passage of the Bill?Yes.

837. That means I take it, that no amendments will be considered?-Well, that is really put in because we could not suggest any amendments; the thing was so liquid, if I may put it that way. We could not tell where it began or where it ended. I have no authority from the Council to say it, but I think it would be quite sufficient as far as we are concerned, if the corporate members of the Institution of Engineers now or hereafter were to be excluded entirely from the provisions of this Bill,

838. In that connection have you or your Council had any conversation with the Royal Institute of British Architects

on that subject?-Yes; I could give you the dates of that. What took place was

66

copies of the Bill as passed at a General Meeting of the Royal Institute of British Architects on the 13th December were forwarded to the Institution on the 20th December by the Registration Committee, with an intimation that the Committee would be glad to deal with any observations the Institution might wish to make. The President of the Institution had an interview with Major Barnes on the 24th January at which the matter was discussed. The President informed Major Barnes that the Institution desired to have the same total exemption from the operation of the Act as was given to naval architects." Now, if we had had that, we should not have been here today taking up your time.

839. Then do I understand that the Royal Institute of British Architects inserted your Council in Schedule 2 without your consent or knowledge?-I knew nothing about it; absolutely without, yes. May I just finish this? On the 23rd March the Registration Committee forwarded a copy of the printed Bill as introduced into the House of Commons, pointing out some differences in detail from the original Bill, and expressing the hope that it would receive the support of the Institution. On the 7th April the Council informed the Committee that, after careful consideration, they must oppose the Bill in the interests of members of the Institution.

840. But I understand that if that one amendment that you state now were agreed to, that is, your elimination from the scope of the Bill, you are not in any way further concerned?-Absolutely.

Dr. Watts.

£41. If your name is withdrawn from the schedule, you have no opposition to the Bill?-Oh dear, no. If a clause were put in that Bill, that the provisions of the Bill in no way refer to the corporate members of the Council now, or hereafter-there would have to be proper words that is the suggestion.

Captain Wallace.

842. Sir Charles, you said just now that you barred architects from sitting for your examinations?—Yes.

21 June, 1927.]

[Continued.

843. As a matter of interest, would you tell us how you define architect ?-I cannot do that, but we can settle it as far as our scrutiny of qualifications of training etc. is concerned, and if their studies have not been appropriate to Engineering they cannot sit for our examination. We do not admit people to our examinations until we are satisfied that they have been or are properly trained as Engineers.

844. Can you define architectural study?-No; I cannot be drawn into that Other people have tried it, but really what it does is this. They have to state what work they have been doing. They have been articled to A., B. or C. If A. has been trained as an architect we cannot consider him.

Chairman.

845. You certainly have some objection to the fact that there is no definition of an architect or the scope of architectural work in the Bill?—Yes, absolutely; it is too indefinite.

846. Is there any precedent for including the definition of a profession in any registration Act?-No, not in a registration Act, but it is in our charter.

847. Take any registration Act; is there any definition?-I do not know; I would not like to say; but if it was only coming in and asking for the registration without all these other conditions, which may lead to something else

848. You are very anxious to distinguish between architects and anyone who is likely to do any work that should belong to a Civil Engineer?-Yes, who is now at the present time doing it, designing all this structural iron work and skeleton buildings.

849. And then you are rather afraid that these people will receive the title of registered architects because they are allowed by the Admission Committee to become registered architects?-Yes, because they may say, "Oh, that man is doing architectural work; he has done all this steel structure for this building." It is not architect's work.

850. Then the Admission Committee is formed of a great number of associations and societies ?—Yes.

851. Do not you think that they would be able to exclude people who were not competent ?-I have no confidence in that

852. Would you not assume, Sir Charles, that the more architects there are on that Committee, the more strong would be the desire to raise the standard of the admittees, the persons admitted? -That is quite a reasonable proposition to put, but what I think is that this Bill is really to try and sweep in some 4,000 people who are outside.

853. To what advantage, if I may ask? -The more people they can get in under their rules and regulations, the stronger they are themselves as an Institution.

854. Stronger in numbers, but surely much weaker in reputation?-A man goes out with their brand.

855. At present we will assume it is a small body of highly qualified, highly intelligent, and highly devoted men to the profession. According to your theory they are only waiting on the ball of the feet, so to speak, to bring in all sorts of unqualified people who will lower the standard of the profession?-I would not like to go as far as that. I would not say "unqualified people."

856. Not so highly qualified? Yes, I agree, but in those not so highly qualified people, they would be taking in, and calling architects, men who are now doing Civil Engineers' work.

857. But of course the Admission Committee is for the purpose of securing that people who were not qualified for the practice of architecture would not be admitted into the profession? That is the great difficulty. There is an overlapping or an interwoven stage where architecture and engineering meet and to-day it is a well established custom that all these big structures are done by engineers; but they do form part of the building. The Admission Committee would say "that is in connection with their architectural work, let them come in."

Mr. William Hirst.

858. May I just ask, arising out of the point put by Colonel Moore, what he was

[Continued.

really intending to say as regard the Royal Institute of British Architects becoming stronger by the introduction of these agencies mentioned in the second schedule?-Because they have a larger umber of people over whom they would have control through their Council, and through their rules and regulations.

859. Have you in mind the raising of a status of the architectural profession or in the charging of fees?—I am thinking of the profession; they will bring these people in and will have them under their control. If they can draw in most of these people who are not with them at the moment, they will smash any other society, and they will be the only one living-to that extent they are strengthened.

Chairman.

860. You are able in the conduct of your Institution to distinguish between the work of the Architect and the work of the Engineer. Is not that so?-We are sure so far as the work is concerned, but we are also enabled to distinguish between the two when they enter our Institution, and we will not take one who has been trained as an Architect into our Institution.

861. You have well-defined boundaries? -We have to consider well-defined boundaries for engineering.

862. Then do you not think that this Admission Committee would not be able to distinguish between the work of an engineer and the work of an architect? -I think they would, but what I say is this, that that is where you come to the two works coming very close together, and they will say that is connected with our architecture and we will let them in, and then they are taking in engineers and not architects. That is my point.

563. Before anything is done, the Council of the Royal Institute of British Architects under this Bill will have to proceed by way of resolution defining the nature of architectural work?-As I understand the Bill as drawn, the Admission Committee are free and independent of the Council of the Royal Institute of British Architects, altogether. It is solely in their hands, the twelve architects with the others, to say whether they are men of sufficient experience in architectural work to be registered as registered architects, and the council of the Institute have nothing whatever to do with them.

Sir Murdoch Macdonald.

864. In other words, what you mean is that the architeets are to have the power to define their own fimits themselves, and they can expand them as much as they please? That is so. You have put it much better than I could.

Colonel Moore..

865. I think we must assume a standard of professional morality on the Admission Committee. I am glad you have said that. When they go for their exămination, but in this transition stage anything may happen.

Sir Murdoch Macdonald.] In connection with the point that has just been made, I would like to read a paragraph which is in the book in front of me: "Whether one can expect a modern architect, whose repertoire is already extensive enough in all conscience, to recapture the design of bridges and fortifications is very questionable; but upon his knowledge of mathematics, geometry and mechanicswith all their recent applications to structural science depends his ability to retain the increasing amount of building that is essentially scientific in its nature." So it is not a question of morality. It is a question that the architects are really considering whether they could not extend still further the bounds which they have already got.

Mr. Lindley.] It is a question of expediency, Sir Murdoch.

Sir Murdoch Macdonald.] Yes, it is entirely a matter of expediency.

Chairman.

866. I have a letter before me by Mr. Tudsbery, of the Institution of Civil Engineers, when you were endeavouring to put forward your Bill. In that he says, "the main issue is that approved by the members last session, namely, the definition and limitation of the title of Civil Engineer, coupled with the claim that the Institution of Civil Engineers is established by 100 years of experience and effort and position to entitle it to determine the proper qualifications for that profession." That is your view, is it not? Yes.

867. That I take it is the view of the Royal Institute of British Architects with regard to Architects and Architecture?It may be, Sir.

21 June, 1927.]

[Continued.

868. I think that undoubtedly is so. I think you must admit that.-I am drawing the distinction, and I am sorry I must say it again. As between the Royal Institute of British Architects and their Council and the Admission Committee, the great damage to the profession of architecture that may arise, through this Admission Committee, of letting in A.B.C. and D. without proper qualifications and calling them registered architects, is a very serious one in my view...

839. To go back to my point, were you not trying then to do exactly what the architects are trying to do now?-We were trying then at that time, as I pointed out, to get powers to prevent persons who did not possess the necessary qualifications for Civil Engineers from styling themselves Civil Engineers. We found so many of the Engineering Institutions were affected that it became too complicated and we dropped the Bill.

870. The difference between you and them is that they apparently do not find it quite so complicated, and they are endeavouring to and they have in fact brought in a Bill, by which they hope to do by registration exactly what you hoped te do, and the Bill has passed Second Reading in the House of Commons.Yes. Subject to what I have said as to the difference between a profession as defined and one which is undefined.

871. Therefore the principle of registration as far as the architects' side is concerned, is admitted by the House.

Mr. William Hirst.] Is not that rather an extravagance of imagination, Mr. Chairman?

Witness.] The difference if I may put it, is that our profession is very well defined and the Architects' profession is not defined, and it is not defined in this Bill.

Sir Murdoch Macdonald.] In regard to the point you made Mr. Chairman, a little while ago, about previous Acts of Parliament and Registration, is there on record any Act of Parliament granting registration to a definite body, where in the country already without that body, there was another body of people competent to carry out similar kinds of work, who were to be excluded.

Chairman.] I should not like to answer that myself. I think not.

Sir Murdoch Macdonald.] The point that you were making, Sir, was that the Engineers were objecting to the Architects being registered at the moment, and that a number of Acts of Parliament granting registration has already been carried through, and the point I want to draw your attention to is—yes, it is perfectly true-quite a number of people, doctors and others have been registered, but they have not left outside already trained and competent people capable of carrying out similar duties.

Mr. William Hirst.] Following up if I may what Sir Murdoch Macdonald has been mentioning, supposing for example that this Institution of Structural Engineers got to be a much more important association than it is perhaps now, is it not possible that you might find it necessary, Sir Charles, as an Institution, to safeguard yourselves against what the structural engineers are doing for example.

Witness.] So far as the structural engineers are concerned, it is fairly well defined what they are doing. As the body is to-day it includes besides architects a large number of constructional engineers. They started their work as the Concrete Institution and from that they have developed now into designing the joists and stanchions and so forth of buildings.

872. But then they have gone from one advancement to another have they not? -Yes, they want to go to another advancement and we are opposing it.

Mr. Lindley.

873. Arising out of the answer you gave to Mr. Hirst, may I ask this. In paragraph 21 you say 'The Institution of Structural Engineers is a mixed body composed of Architects," does not your answer prove that the Architects are already encroaching upon the work of Civil Engineers ?-The Architects are in favour of that petition for a Charterthey are backing it. As I have already said there are something like 450 of their members in this thing, and they want to call themselves Registered Architects and Chartered Structural Engineers.

874. I quite follow that, but what I am trying to get is Sir Charles's view on matters of importance to his Institution.