23 June, 1927.]

amended Bill?-Undoubtedly, as I have said.

943. And one can understand its effect then. What effect could it possibly have, or what meaning, as applied to the amended Bill?-I do not see that it makes the slightest difference, using the word "architect" or "registered architect.'

944. I would like to ask you a question about that. You say it makes no difference. Supposing a man uses the term "registered architect," that means that he has gone through the prescribed course. If he uses that term and has not done it, he is telling a lie and has committed a fraud?-Unquestionably.

945. If, on the other hand, he calls himself an architect, and he is a competent man, like many of your local architects, what harm is he doing? Are you still going to allow him to practice as an architect?

946. We have said that you do not interfere in the least degree with his duties, and he may still call himself an architect? Does it not come back to what we were originally asking for? Those who are employed by local authorities are exempt from the provisions.

947. Is there any provision in the amended Bill that could possibly apply to the architects whom you employ under you ordinary practice? I have already tried to explain our difficulty with regard to Clause 11.

[Continued

954. Now your engineer or surveyor performs architectural duties. At the present moment you enjoy the right to go outside your own staff for County Halls, Town Halls, Baths, and so on?Yes.

955. You wish still to preserve and to enjoy that right?—Yes.

956. I understand your objection is that whilst an architect may call himself a surveyor and engineer, your engineer and surveyor may not call himself an architect? That is the fear.

957. That is your fear?--Yes, that the person whom we employ might get into trouble by doing work as an architect.

958. You are afraid that your engineer or your surveyor, when your County Council instruct him to design a school, would be practising as an architect, and that he would be prohibited by this line 35-He has to deal with the building contract, of course; he has got to give a certificate.

23 June, 1927.]

is a registered person and any unregistered person who is practising or wilfully pretends to be a registered person comma, "or takes or uses the name or title of an architect."

Chairman.] No, it should be "registered architect."

Mr. Tasker.] But I have not got it. Chairman.] Then you have got the Wrong Bill.

Mr. William Hirst.] Might I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that arguments on the exact wording of a Bill are a little out of place before a witness, and it is important to have correct extracts?

Mr. Tasker.] I beg your pardon. Chairman.] The whole of your argument then, Mr. Tasker, falls to the ground?

Mr. Tasker.

(To the Witness.)

959. Not quite Sir. What you fear is that your surveyor or your borough engineer may not practise as an architect?-May get into trouble for doing our work.

66

960. If he puts on his drawings "Surveyor" or Borough Engineer "would not that entitle him to design the building? We hope so; we do not know. We call him to-day "Building Surveyor."

961. I gather Sir Alfred's question was how is he prevented from designing, say, a school, so long as he puts Borough Engineer" or "Borough Surveyor" on the drawings, instead of the word "architect"-Any unregistered person who so practises.

Sir Alfred Hopkinson.] I was not arguing any point; I was only asking for information.

Witness.] I wanted to answer, I hope, courteously, any questions that were put to me.

Mr. Gardner.

66

962. Sir Edmund, have you any reason to assume that either your own County Council or any of the County Councils you represent, have men in their employ who are likely to take steps either to call themselves registered Architects " when they are not registered, or to use phrases in connection with the work which would mislead people?---We should never allow it for one second. No County Council would ever allow such a thing.

963. What grounds have you got for assuming that there are any dangers under Clause 11?-I have tried to explain that to Sir Alfred. It is our reading of the clause.

[Continued.

964. I was trying to put it in a different way. You have got out a most admirable schedule. You show conclusively that every time you want architects you go to architects; when you want builders you go to them. Now there is nothing in the Bill to interfere with that practice? Am I to take your word for that?

965. Perhaps I should not put it in that way.

Witness.] That is argument, surely, Mr. Chairman?

Sir Frederick Rice.

966. I should like to ask Sir Edmund if the words in lines 34, 35 and 36, up to registered person were deleted, would that meet his point? No, I am going to ask the Committee to exclude those employed by local authorities altogether, not only for the purposes of Clause 11, but for the future.

967. Then the implication you suggest would not apply if those words were not in the Bill? No, but I am apprehensive of the future, and also for all local authorities with model bye-laws who have to employ a Surveyor of Highways to deal with them.

Dr. Watts.

968. Do you consider really that the present system, under which any person, without any training or without any examination test, should be entitled to describe himself as an architect, any man in the street, is satisfactory, or would you consider it better that there should be some organised system of instruction, some definite examination test, before a person could use the term registered architect "?-That, of course, with great respect, is a question of principle. If I may say so respectfully, I agree generally on the point, but I am only here for the County Councils Association.

66

969. But you or they would agree that it would be far better that the thing should be classified, and that there should be some examination, would you not?-That is not a County Council point of view, one way or the other; that is the principle of the Bill, is it not?

970. Your personal opinion?—I am afraid my personal opinion must not be worth anything here.

23 June, 1927.]

Sir Murdoch Macdonald.

971. Looking at paragraph 8 of your précis, you there say that it is your practice to employ engineers and surveyors to do work of an architectural character?—Yes.

972. That means that you consider your engineers and surveyors capable of doing architectural work?-Certainly.

973. And that you object to have one class of technical experts debarred from doing whatever architectural work you have got to undertake?-Yes.

974. And that these people who are engineers are quite qualified for their work. In particular, I observe you say: "It is frequently the task of County engineering staffs to design bridges and other structures "?-Yes; on the Highways Committee they have to do that, of

course.

975. And you are afraid that if the Bill passed and registered architects got the powers which the Bill implies, they alone would be really qualified to design bridges?—There is that danger.

976. In other words, that a certain branch of the engineering profession, pure and simple, would be taken from engineers and given to architects.-Yes, there is that danger.

Mr. William Hirst.

977. You have not been acquainted with the amended form of the Bill, Sir Edmund ?-I am afraid not.

978. You have had no official communication from the Clerk to the Committee regarding it?-No; we have not had anything sent to us from the Committee.

At

979. Now would you be good enough to turn to page 8 of the Bill itself. the bottom there you will see that there are certain words "or to any person when performing any of the duties or functions connected with any office held by him under any public or local authority or to the department of any undertaking the head of which is a registered person." I would like to ask you, providing that you yourself had been told, or the Committee which you are representing here to-day had been told, that that proposed amended form of clause 20- -?-Take Somersetshire, where they have one architect and four assistants. This is evidently done for the purpose of covering those who assist the head architect. Assuming in the North

[Continued.

Riding we appointed a registered person as an architect, then by this proviso here, with three or four assistants they would be protected in "performing any of the duties or functions connected with any office held by him under any public or local authority." That does not meet our case at all, because we do not have "the head of which is a registered person," and we do not intend to have one. We have had one, and have suffered under it.

980. In what respect, may I ask?Because he is entitled to get 6 per cent. on every £1.

981. You have suffered financially?—Yes, purely.

982. Not professionally ?-No, but you put up a building and you pull it down; all that is on the 6 per cent. basis. We have suffered under it terribly, and we have determined not to go on with it. But this wording will not help us one bit.

983. You are not satisfied with that? -It will not help us, because you must begin by having "the head of which is a registered person."

984. Would you explain just a little more fully clause 10 on page 4 of your précis, where you declare that there is some apprehension regarding the future. position of legislation affecting the Bill? -Well, of course one knows that, once you begin on this slippery slope, what may happen.

985. May I put a blunt question to you: Is it your private opinion, or the opinion of those you represent here this afternoon, that there will be a proposal to make the architectural profession a much more close corporation by subsequent legislation than is proposed by this Bill? Unquestionably. We feel certain that is the danger.

986. And you think, arising out of that, that you certainly, as County Councillors, will be called upon to suffer by such legislation ?-Certainly. Think of district councils with all their model byelaws; they will have to employ a registered architect.

Chairman.

987. No, no.-Oh, yes, they will, as sure as can be, and then it will be a blessing if the local authority will say only plans submitted by the registered architect shall be looked at. I shall get

23 June, 1927.]

into trouble. I draw my own plans and send them to the district authority. I shall get this enormous penalty for practising as a registered architect.

988. You have said in your evidence that sometimes you do go outside to employ a special architect to do certain buildings. I beg your pardon; I thought Sir Alfred asked me whether there should be power to do it. I cannot say, myself, now that we have got a capital building surveyor, we have gone outside -no. I understood Sir Alfred to ask whether the County Councils desired to retain the power which they have to-day to go outside.

Sir Alfred Hopkinson.] I rather think that I did put it in that form; but I gather they do go outside regularly, and it is the same thing.

Chairman.

989. I think it is the same point; my point will be the same. It is possible that you would go outside on occasions, or you might go outside if you had the power to go outside?—Yes.

990. Then, in that case, if you go outside you will then, of course, employ a

[Continued.

registered architect, provided that this Bill went through? Clearly.

991. Therefore there must be, in your mind, a difference between a registered architect and the man or the person who acts and does architecture for the County Council?-Certainly.

992. But if that person, whoever he may be, is allowed under this Bill to carry on the work that he does, surely that does not in any way interfere with a registered architect, nor does the fact that this Bill, if it goes through, declares in favour of certain people who have a special education being called registered architects, in any way interfere with the people under your employ in the County Councils Association ?-It would not be deferential to the Chairman if I were to venture to combat that statement?

993. I should like you to say yes or no. You know you are a Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and you must have heard witnesses over and over again, and you must have asked them the same question as I do. You ask them,

Would you say yes or no to the Counsel?"?-My answer then to you is, no, distinctly and emphatically.

Chairman.] We are very much obliged to you.

80.

996. You have sent us a very interesting précis; it is somewhat long, and it covers a great number of points, but I think perhaps you may like briefly to explain your précis and to recapitulate a few of the points. Is that so?—I did not propose to re-read the statement.

997. No, I do not want you to do that. -But there are one or two things I should like to say especially with regard to one item which is omitted from this précis. I will deal with that first, if I may. It is noted by my organisation that the promoters do not consider it necessary to provide for any special cases which may arise outside the pro* Vide Appendix No. 8.

examined.

be

visions of the Bill. I think their evidence was that their organisation is so far flung that they do not anticipate even the possibility of a special case arising. The opinion of my organisation is that a special case may easily arise. It is conceivable that a man may develop his artistic talent late in life, or abroad, or that he may not be in a position until late in life to devote himself to a business which is partly an art and partly a a science. He may thoroughly qualified on the science side and acceptable to the public on the art side, yet he may not by reason of his age be able to pass an examination test. A youngster may have gained his experience or education, or both, in America or in France or in some corner of the Dominions where the far-flung arm of the Royal Institute of British Architects does not reach, and he may then return to this country. Or he may be a thoroughly qualified builder wno

ן:

at the age of 40 to 45 wishes to turn his attention to architecture. Or he may be a craftsman who approaches architecture via building and arrives at his goal too late in life to hope to pass examination tests, except one of special character. The Institute of Builders feels therefore that in the interest of Architectural Art and of those who may wish to express themselves in its terms, there should be a special case clause in the Bill under which admission to the Register without examination or by means of a special examination to meet the circumstances should be at the discretion of the "Board of Architectural Examination and Registration," which we propose.

998. That is all you wish to add, is it not?—I think so, Sir.

Sir Alfred Hopkinson.

999. I am afraid I did not quite hear the greater part of what was read, but I have only one or two questions to ask. I understood, as far as I could hear, that you think there might be hardship if the door into the profession of Registered Architects was not open to people of mature years who have done practical work and got past the time for examination?-Yes; we think there should be a special case clause to deal with a special case which may arise.

1000. You know the analogy of the Lawyers and of Solicitors, that people who have been managing clerks a long time can be admitted into the profession and excused certain examinations ?—Yes. 1001. And you think a clause of that sort would be desirable?-Yes.

1002. But subject to that, taking an ordinary case-I am not speaking of builders' work-but you know as regards Architects' work, the question of design, it is desirable, I suppose, that people should be trained in the history of past design?-Naturally, we think so. In our summary of the evidence we state, of course, that it is in the interest of builders that architects should be qualified in science as well as in art.

1003. From your point of view, the better trained man you are working under the better for you all round? -Certainly.

1004. And you would prefer to work under a highly-trained man, trained both on the constructional side and the side of design, than under Dick, Tom or Harry? That is so.

[Continued.

1005. And that being so, you are quite out for seeing architectural education improved as much as possible?-Certainly, with a proviso.

1006. And reasonable tests applied, provided that you meet the case of the older man who has got past the stage of examinations?—Yes. If I may say so, we wish the conception of building to envisage architecture and building as the schools actually do, and we wish architectural education to be developed as far as it possibly can be, subject to this proviso, that it is not developed at the expense of educational funds which should be spent upon building education.

1007. If you have a competent authority settling a scheme of examination and instruction, that will be all to the good?--Yes, provided that it safeguards the interests of building education which are interlocked with architecture.

1008. Quite so: the education of the builder and the architect is somewhat different, though overlapping to some extent? I think it is generally accepted that there is a common foundation up to a certain point, from which point it specialises in different directions.

1009. There is a bifurcation?—Yes.

1010. What one may call the historical and artistic side is mainly the part for the architect, and the constructional side and the scientific side is the necessary part for the builder?-Mainly so, Sir, but I think the view generally held amongst builders is that it is impossible for them to interpret the architect's artistic conception of a building unless they also have an appreciation of building.

art.

1012. You have seen the amended Bill, which is quite different from the original, have you not, and have considered that? -We have considered that Bill, and of course our objections to that Bill are modified by the employment of the term "Registered Architect," but the machinery of the Bill exists very much as it did before, and, as that machinery may intefere with the special interests of the Building industry, we have there the same objections to the Bill as we had before it was amended.

1013. Is the most important of those objections the point you have raised about