adverse effect upon building-industry education by setting up a central authority which might unduly influence the expenditure upon technical education in one direction of public funds provided for the several directions comprised in the term " Building Education."

(19) In 1927, the Royal Institute of British Architects promoted a Registration Bill under which, if successful, the Royal Institute of British Architects could (through the influence it could exert) become a statutory body parallel to, or in supercession of, the Board of Education and of the local education authorities.

(20) In the second edition of the Bill, the promoters included in the proposed Board of Architectural Education one representative of the Institute of Builders without their knowledge.

In this action the proacters recognise the interest of building education in architectural education: the natural link between design and execution. But the recognition is ineffective in its expression, disproportionate to its importance and ineffective in the extent of its expression.

(21) The Institute of Builders gladly acknowledges the achievements and the services of the Royal Institute of British Architects to the cause of architectural education with these qualifications:

(i) It believes they may have tended towards narrowing architectural expression, a defect it would anticipate in any statutory central examining body or other educational central body of control in an Art.

(ii) It believes it is a chronological mistake if education in design is placed before education in construction.

(iii) It believes it is an economic mistake to regard design as being of superior importance to construction.

(iv) It believes that the production of good and economic building rests upon the equal and concurrent educational development of the various units of the Building Industry, and that the emphasis of architectural education in the schools may have been to some extent at the expense of education for the executive and administrative units of the Building Industry.

(v) It believes that the conception of building education as nothing more than education in one or more of the building crafts (which conception is still very prevalent) is partly due to the attitude of architecture towards building and the preponderating architectural influence which exists in a subject by no means solely within the province or knowledge of architecture.

(vi) The Institute of Builders does not imagine the Building Industry to be without blame in the neglect of building education, but it is anxious that nothing shall be done towards the statutory consolidation of an order of things which is not yet generally felt to be altogether in the public interest, especially in view of the industry's awakening interest in the need for education in the science of building.

The witness will say

(22) The criticism of the Institute of Builders upon the Bill in its form at the Second Reading was as follows:

(a) If architecture is an art, then successful examination in it is not feasible. An attempt to examine in it would have a narrowing and otherwise harmful effect on its expression. A central examination would emphasise these defects. A compulsory examination might deprive the country of great expression in architectural art. The Bill is unsound in this matter.

(b) If architecture is a science, then so far as it affects our National health and security, the country is adequately protected

in its Building Acts and Bye-Laws; its system of official control; the liabilities of builders under these Acts, Bye-Laws, control and contracts; the science of the builder and his staff; the craft knowledge and skill of the operative. The Bill is unnecessary in the

interest of health and safety.

(c) So far as it is a science, Architecture comes within the science of the Building Industry. There should be no State privilege to or special recognition of Architecture in a matter of common and greater knowledge in a community larger than that of Architecture. The Bill is unfair in this matter.

(d) The promoting body has long enjoyed special charter privileges to secure its educational end. It states that it already "controls" and inspires the system of architectural teaching throughout the Empire. As an educational measure the Bill appears unnecessary.

(e) The promoting body is not only an educational and examining body. It is a professional protection association vis à vis other protection associations within the same interest of building. The Bill is unfair to these other interests. The State should not lend its aid to the consolidation and entrenchment of one of several interests. This the Bill could unwisely and unfairly effect.

(f) Indefinition throughout the Bill coupled with the initial failure of the promoters to appreciate any other interests affected, suggest that it would be dangerous to the building public and to the other units of the building industry to hand over the great powers under the Bill to any Body representing a particular interest among many. Moreover, the State should not be asked to recognise with a hallmark a function to be subsequently progressively or retrogressively determined by the Bill promoting body (who have not shown themselves sensitive to the interests of others engaged in the same field as themselves)-possibly at the expense of the building public and of the other units of the building industry. The relative position of the architect not being fixed his function not being defined, the evolution of the architect to the position and function he may seek should not be State-aided at the risk of injury to other and larger interests.

(23) It is clearly in the general interests of the public and of the special interests of the Building Industry that the unqualified practitioner in Architecture should be discouraged. In this matter the Institute of Builders has a parallel interest and objective in “ Building to that of the promoting body in "Architecture." It was with much regret it found itself in opposition upon this Bill to a body of equal antiquity with similar aims-a body with whom it has had a long and harmonious association in the common field of building.

(24) The Institute of Builders would not place or attempt to place a barrier to the fair and sound development of an educational movement in the interests of another unit of the Building Industry, and (through it) of the building public.

(25) The Institute of Builders therefore welcomes the decision reluctantly adopted by the promoting body to discard the principle of compulsion in the Bill. It welcomes too the keynote of Major Barnes' evidence for the promoting body that this is not intended to be other than a Bill to secure the spread and advancement of architectural education and proper standards of professional conduct. Also it welcomes the broad conception of co-operative interests in architectural education and practice denoted by his recognition of the interests of those who are engaged in the practical work of building, including the operative ranks. And if these benevolent views and intentions only are truly incorporated and expressed throughout the measure, then the Institute of Builders will be glad to withdraw from an opposition which is distasteful to it.

For though the Bill will still contain certain potential dangers to the free development of architectural art, the Institute of Builders believes then that the evil that might be done would be less than the good that would be gained.

(26) The Institute of Builders however is anxious that the Bill should be in harmony with the evidence, and to this end submits the following criticisms: :

(27) Clause 2.-It is a defect in the Bill and a source of anxiety that "architect" is not defined.

Under the Bill, the first determination of the term is to be left:

(a) To the promoting body and others granting diplomas. (Clause 5.) (b) To an Admission Committee representing many opinions other than those of builders and general public. (Clause 5 (2).) (c) To the High Court. (Clause 10.)

Definition is therefore possible.

(28) Major Barnes, too, in his evidence for the promoting body, has attempted a definition of "architect." This, however, is not the Bill. It is of importance that the public and other interests should know what it is that is to be registered, and that the Bill should not grant a perpetual privilege to extend the meaning of "Architect" at the expense of others.

(29) Clause 3 (I) and (I).-Major Barnes has stated a case for the recognition of the Council of the promoting body as the registration authority. He sets up a parallel with the Law Society and rejects a parallel with the medical profession. On the contrary, there seems no close parallel in this matter between the solicitor and the architect: a strong parallel between medicine and architecture. We may escape the solicitor and his practice of the law all our lives; we can scarcely escape the architect and his practice of architecture. A solicitor does not make the law the architect does make architecture. We can no more escape medicine and the medical profession than we can escape architecture and the architectural profession. The medical profession make medical science: the architectural profession make architectural art.

(30) The matter, however, should not be determined by an imaginary precedent of other times, but upon the needs of the case in the general interests affected.

(31) Architecture is not a separate interest. Like medicine, it is of nation-wide interest. It is inseparable in its expression from its cooperative interests which together make up the building industry.

(32) The registration authority should therefore be independent of the control or undue influence of any vested interest of the nature of a professional protection association, and truly representative of effective and affected interests.

(33) The machinery adumbrated in the Bill suggests no good reason why the registration authority should not be a "Board of Architectural Examination and Registration," departments of which should be:

(i)" Board of Examination."

(ii) "Board of Registration."

(iii) "Board of Disciplinary Control" (hereinafter referred to in these terms).

It is submitted that an amendment to this effect throughout the Bill would, subject to further criticism noted later, effect the purpose of the promoting body without detracting from its educational and other benevolent intentions.

(34) It is proposed that registrtion fees shall be charged. These would finance the proposed "Board of Registration" in its registration and

publication duties and the proposed "Board of Disciplinary Control "' in its ordinary duties of enquiry.

(35) Clause 4.-It is considered this matter should be in the hands of the proposed "Board of Architectural Examination and Registration."

(36) Clause 5 (1).—It is considered the registration authority should be the proposed "Board of Registration," acting through the proposed "Board of Architectural Examination and Registration."

(37) It should not be possible for the successful student and others to acquire the hallmark of registration and the advantage of advertisement as registered architect" without a period of practical experience in a suitable subordinate capacity.

66

It is felt that neither the public nor the building industry should pay for an architect's first practical experiments as they will if he is recognised by a statutory authority as qualified to practice immediately upon gaining his diploma or upon passing the prescribed examination.

(38) Clause 5 (2).—Unless the architect and his function are defined, it is difficult to see how this Admission Committee is to function or, alternatively, how it will avoid heavy cost to the public and to builders through its questionable "admissions or heavy expense to large numbers of persons through its questionable " rejections." Its first duty will be

to define " architect" if the Bill does not do it.

(39) The proposed Admission Committee is or is not a representative and responsible body, reasonably to be entrusted with the duty of determining doubtful first claims to registration.

(40) If it is such a body (as it should be) there seems no good reason why it should not be a temporary department of and in the office of the proposed "Board of Registration" or why it should be “ regulated" by the Council of the promoting body (Clause 16).

(41) As the cases to come before the Admission Committee are cases which the promoting body has been unable to determine either in favour of or against the candidate, there seems no good reason why the promoting body should propose to be so heavily represented upon the proposed Admission Committee.

(42) Clause 6 (1) and (2).-If the Board of Architectural Education is a representative and responsible body, there seems no sound reason why the Council should prescribe qualifications for registration. It is considered this Board should be the proposed "Board of Architectural Examination and Registration," and that this body should prescribe the qualifications and should control admissions to the register upon the report of the proposed "Board of Examination" upon the result of its examinations held in accordance with the conditions laid down by the proposed "Board of Architectural Examination and Registration," with whom the control should rest.

(43) Section (2).-This section throws a doubt upon whether the "Board of Architectural Education" will function at all. It is considered there should be no doubt in this matter.

(44) Together, the sections (1) and (2) disclose indecision in the minds of the promoting body about the qualifications to be prescribed. They suggest there may be other qualifications besides examination. If any, it would be more satisfactory for them to be stated. A blank cheque should not be given to any controlling authority unless the function within its authority is defined and the composition of the authority reflects fairly in its representation and balance the interests and the weight of the interests affected.

(45) Section (1).-A responsible Examining Board should be a suitable fee-receiving authority.

(46) Section (2).—There seems no reason why the proposed "Board of Examination" should not make its own administrative arrangements through its own staff.

(47) The proposal to recognise the promoting body's final examination for exemption purposes emphasises the danger of vesting registration authority in any other than an independent, truly representative and responsible body.

(48) Major Barnes expects the promoting body's final examination will probably be of rather a higher standard than the Registration Examination. Neither Major Barnes nor the present Council of the promoting body can give any guarantee of permanent value in this

matter.

(49) Under the Bill:

(a) If the Registration examination happened to be relatively of low standard, the relatively select promoting body would stand perpetually in authority over the great mass of architects debarred from the privileges of the promoting body's membership.

(b) If the Registration Examination happened to be relatively of equal standard, there would be a direct encouragement to recruits to seek registration via the promoting body's membership examination, to the further advantage of that body's assets, income and membership (which advantage Major Barnes has already noted as the outcome of the agreement which led to the promotion of this Bill), and to the advancement of its power vis à vis other protection associations.

(c) If the Registration examination happened to be relatively of high standard, the young architect would be swept on to the register via the membership examination of the promoting body, with the same advantage to the promoting body.

(50) This clause (6) would give to the promoting authority at any unduly protective or selfish period of its history the opportunity to enlist architects to their membership to their own consolidation and advantage as a professional protection association, or, alternatively, to reduce recruitment to the ranks of their profession, to the financial advantage of their members-whether the economic situation suggested it to be wise to discourage or to encourage youth to pursue an architectural vocation.

(51) Major Barnes has said the promoting body would like to have more competition in the market. They may their successors may not. The Bill should not leave this matter open to exploitation.

(52) It is submitted this clause (6) should make it clear that the proposed "Board of Examination" will set and mark the examination and fix its pass standard, in accordance with the conditions laid down by the proposed "Board of Architectural Examination and Registration," with whom the ultimate control should rest.

(53) Recognition for exemption purposes of other examinations via the Council of the promoting body sets up a barrier to the recognition of other examining bodies' examinations. Under the Bill there is no appeal in this matter from the Council's adverse decision. The proposed "Board of Architectural Examination and Registration "' should be a competent authority to determine partial or complete exemption, subject to report from the proposed "Board of Examination," and to the safeguard of a right of appeal.

(54) Clause 7 (1).—It is submitted that the Discipline Committee should be a responsible committee-acting for confirmation and promulgation purposes through the proposed "Board of Architectural Examination and Registration "--and known as the "Board of Disciplinary Control."