24 May, 1927.]

Institute would, by their majority, have the control of the admission or rejection of members for registration ?-If I may say so with great deference, it appears to me that that question is based upon the view that the members of the Institute on the Admission Committee will always be acting under the direction of the Institute as an Institute, and that I very confidently assert would never be the case. I think the Royal Institute of British Architects would never direct its members upon this body to exercise any. thing other than an individual judgment upon the particular case put to them, and that no member coming before the Admission Committee need ever have the least fear that the Institute as an Institute would take any concern whatever in his election.

289. Assuming that they did, do you agree that it is the primary duty of this Committee to see that, whoever is appointed to keep the register and to admit or to reject applicants for registration, the person or the body claiming that privilege and, as you said, honour, is the rightful body?-I entirely agree. 290. You have, in reply to examination by the honourable Member for the Universities, said that, in your opinion, the Royal Institute of British Architects are the rightful people, and you have said in your précis of evidence that you have conducted examinations and controlled admissions of students in the architectural profession for many years past? It is obvious that we have conducted the examinations of the Institute. I mean, in that respect, we do not differ from any other body, of course.

291. I put it, to the profession as members of the Institute?-No; we have never had any control upon entrance to the profession. We have never had any examination which governed entrance to the profession. We have had examinations which governed entrance to the Institute, and, of course, everyone guards the portals of their own dwelling.

292. Then I take it that owing to the fact that you have given evidence to the Committee in your précis that you consider you are the rightful people to do it, you think it would be quite relevant and in order to ask you for explanations of the précis.

Chairman.] I do not quite follow that question.

Sir Frederick Rice.] May I repeat it, Sir? Does the witness agree that, in

[Continued.

submitting the précis, which has for its object to show that the Royal Institute of British Architects are the rightful people to be entrusted with this responsibility and honour, questions asking for an explanation of that précis would be relevant?

Witness.] I take it that I am here to answer any questions and to be examined upon any matters that arise under my précis.

Chairman.] You can ask any questions on that point.

Sir Frederick Rice.] I only want to ascertain whether he thinks it is relevant to ask those questions.

Witness.] I am here to answer questions. If any question of relevancy arises, it would not be for me to express an opinion upon it.

Sir Frederick Rice.] The reason I am asking these questions, Mr. Chairman, is this, that at the last meeting of the Committee the hon. Member for East Islington asked questions dealing with a criticism of the précis, and, unfortunately, there was some little conflict upon it, and he did not pursue those questions. In my view, I think the Royal Institute of British Architects would welcome any criticism or questions on the précis. Therefore, I wanted to ascertain from this witness whether he thought those questions were relevant.

Chairman.] I do not think it is for the witness to decide whether a question is relevant or not. That is entirely a question, in the first instance, for the Chairman, and, subsequently, for the Committee.

I am

Sir Frederick Rice.] Pardon me. not in any way suggesting that he should decide the relevancy of the question. I am asking if he thought they were relevant.

Chairman.] I do not think you can ask him that question. I think you must ask that question of me. You can, however, ask him any question you like on the précis of evidence.

Sir Frederick Rice.] The hon. Member for Islington East asked certain questions, to which he did not get the answers that he thought he ought to get, or thought he was perhaps entitled to, and you know what happened. occurred to me that the witness might like perhaps in order to-I will not say justify, but enlarge upon his précis, to give some answers to those questions

It

24 May, 1927.]

which, with your permission, Sir, I would like to ask him.

Chairman.] Do ask him.

Sir Frederick Rice.

293. They are not my questions. They are questions to which the hon. Member for East Islington apparently would like to have answers. I think, if I understand the witness quite rightly, he would like to answer them. (To the Witness.) One of the questions that was very burning with the hon. Member for East Islington was the question of the exami nation for District Surveyors?—Yes.

294. I understand that the examination for District Surveyors is in the hands of the Royal Institute of British Architects.-That is so.

295. I further understand that vacancies for District Surveyors are more numerous than the people qualified to serve? The vacancies amongst District Surveyors are more numerous?

296. Yes. That is not the case. The question was answered by the Chairman of the Building Acts Committee, who, in reply to a question as to whether there were any people eligible for appointment, said that after two appointments were filled up, which I understand to be the two that remained to be filled up, there would be then two or three men possessing the necessary qualifications, and I am instructed that there may be one or two more than that.

297. That is the answer I anticipated; I wanted to bring that out.-Yes.

298. Now do you, in organising these examinations, charge fees for the people who are examined?-A small fee is charged.

299. Not a prohibitive fee, to prevent candidates coming forward? Three guineas is the fee.

300. Do you agree that appointments carrying a minimum salary of £1,700 per year and probably a maximum salary of £6,000 per year, are appointments which should be eagerly sought after by members of many professions?-In the first place, I think that the figure of £1,700 a year is too high. We have a letter from the London County Council addressed to the Royal Insitute on this matter, which was not addressed to the Institute prior to the meetings of this Committee, but subsequent to the meetings of this Committee, drawing attention to the paucity of candidates, and giving the figure there in that letter,

[Continued.

a minimum figure of £1,000 per year; a net income of £1,000 a year, and not stating, I believe, the maximum. I do not know if you have a copy of that letter, Sir Frederick.

301. I have not. Then seeing that you are charged with this duty, which carries a certain emolument, which is perhaps not altogether unremunerative, do I understand that you do make every effort as a Council to obtain candidates for this position? In reply to this matter I perhaps might be allowed to read to you a statement that has been got out on it.

Captain Wallace.] On a point of order, is not this the statement that was handed in last time? Have we not got

the statement on the subject of these examinations, and is it not now printed as appendix No. 2?

Chairman.] I think we have.

Sir Frederick Rice.] I am rather doing this with your permission, Mr. Chair-. man, to emphasis what I believe to be the fact, that the Institute have done their duty in the past.

Chairman.] Quite so, yes.

Sir Frederick Rice.] And by this means of examination, I would like if possible to satisfy the Committee, but if you think it is unnecessary, I will drop it at once. Also as a matter perhaps of courtesy to the Member for East Islington, that he should have a proper answer to what I think at the time were quite relevant questions, but if you, Sir, will accept the statement which was put in at the last meeting, which I would remind you was put in without knowledge of the Honourable Member's questions, put in in anticipation of them, I think

Chairman.] Yes, that is so. Sir Frederick Rice.] That is just what I wanted to bring out. If you are satisfied that that statement was put in without the actual knowledge of the questions is sufficient for the Committee, I will drop the further questioning.

Chairman.] Personally, I should think so; I do not know what the view of the Committee is.

Mr. Gardner.] On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, these questions are based upon the assumption that it is the duty of the Royal Institute of British Architects to find candidates. I understand that their duty consists of examining candidates. I would like to be perfectly clear on that.

24 May, 1927.]

Sir Frederick Rice.] I am very sorry, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to make it perfectly clear that the Royal Institute of British Architects, in claiming to be the body that should be entrusted with the registration and the future of the architects, were the rightful body, and if they have not done their duty in the past, it seems a question whether we can, without examination, fully accept that position.

Witness.] Well, Sir, I should like to have an opportunity of answering that question. I have now found the statement that has been prepared for me on it.

Sir Frederick Rice.] It is not a hostile question.

Chairman.

302. No.--I want to say that it has never been suggested to the Royal Institute of British Architects that more than one examination should be held in any one year for the position of District Surveyor. If such a suggestion had come from the London County Council, it would have at once been acted upon. The examinations are announced in the Royal Institute of British Architects' Journal, the Royal Institute of British Architects' Calendar and the Professional Press. The Council have in fact taken special steps in the last three or four years to call the attention of the profession to the examinations and to urge suitable candidates to enter for them. No letter on this matter has been received by the Royal Institute of British Architects from the London County Council prior to 14th May, 1927. The letter was acknowledged on 14th May. It has been referred to the appropriate Committee for consideration. Now, Sir, these are the special steps that have been taken to give publicity to the examinations held by the Institute: in December, 1923, an article was published in the R.I.B.A. Journal and Professional Press drawing attention to the examination and outlining its scope. On the 15th June, 1925, a special circular letter was sent to the Schools of Architecture recognised for exemption from the Royal Institute of British Architects' Examinations and to all Polytechnics, and Technical Institutions. In June, 1925, a short article was published in the R.I.B.A. Journal and Professional Press, giving an outline history of the examination and calling attention to the desir

[Continued.

ability of the qualification of District Surveyor. All this, Sir, was without any prompting or suggestions being made. On the 20th February, 1926, a letter from the late Mr. Charles Daubney, who was himself a District Surveyor, with a foreword by the Chairman of the Statutory Examiners, Mr. H. D. Searles-Wood, was published in the R.I.B.A. Journal calling attention to the desirability of the qualification of District Surveyor, and in December, 1926, a short article was published in the R.I.B.A. Journal and Professional Press on the subject of the Statutory Examination, giving the dates of the examination to be held in 1927. I submit respectfully, Sir, that all this was done without any outside initiative at all, and done in the discharge of the duty of the Institute. The position really is this: there are only a limited number of these appointments, and in consequence the prospect of vacancies is very small. It is not like an examination which admits one to a profession or a whole range of professional appointments, all over the country, or in any other countries. The only result of this examination is to give one a possible chance of getting one of about 20 posts, which do not fall vacant oftener than-I am only hazarding-if there is a vacancy every year, I should think that is as much as takes place, and what did happen in the post-war period is this, Sir, that during the war period a number of these District Surveyors got to a time when in a normal sort of way they would have been relinquishing their appointments, but their appointments. were extended from year to year, and the result was that there was not the least certainty and only the vaguest prospect, to anybody entering for this examination that it would be an examination by which they could profit; and I think that undoubtedly would have some effect upon the men coming forward. I think that in everything the Committee hear on this subject, it is important to bear in mind the limited number of appointments that are possible, and the extreme uncertainty during the last few years at all events that there would be vacancies; and then when the vacancies do come they are only vacancies to the least remunerative posts, because it has been the policy of the London County Council (and I do not question it at all) that they advance men, as a good vacancy comes along, because the profits from these appointments vary according

24 May, 1927.]

[Continued.

to the district. I mean the man who is in Westminster gets a very much better appointment than a man who is down at Lewisham. It has been the policy of the Council if a good appointment falls vacant to give advancement in promotion to the men already in their service, so that the appointments that really do offer themselves for competition are the least remunerative appointments, they are small in number, and they are uncertain as to when they are likely to take place, and I think, as far as I can see, that there is no reflection either Council, but that it is the circumstances. of the case that have led to this small number of candidates.

Chairman.

303. I should like to ask one question upon that point. You referred to the date 14th May-that was the first letter you received from the London County Council? That was the first intimation that we have had from the London County Council that there exists any dissatisfaction in that body on the subject of these examinations.

304. That, I think, was after this Committee was formed.-That was after the first meeting of this Committee.

Mr. William Hirst.

305. At any time, Major Barnes.-My instructions are at any time.

Mr. Gardner.

306. Could you tell me whether that Committee reported to the Council, and whether the Council instructed them to write, or is that a direct communication from the Committee itself ?-The letter is from the Clerk to the London County Council.

Dr. Watts.

307. Major Barnes, questions have been asked as to whether the Royal Institute of British Architects is the proper body to be entrusted with the formation of this Register?-Yes.

308. Can you think of any other body? -There is no other body.

309. And you really think, your honest opinion is, that the Royal Institute of British Architects are the proper people? -I think that they are the proper body.

Mr. William Hirst.

310. May I just come back to the question of District Surveyorship. You remember at the last meeting your attention was drawn to the discrepancy between the précis you had put in, and your Calendar, I think.-Yes.

311. I wondered if you had made any enquiries since to prove the irrelevancy of those figures? Yes, I have had an opportunity of doing that, and it is as I surmised. I think if my answer is looked at, it will be seen that I suggested that what had probably happened was that the name in April for 1926-this is the answer I gave to Mr. Lindley on page 35, question 233-the question put to me was "That omission does not do justice to your Institute, until you have done more than is shown in the Kalendar "-and I answered "Unless the explanation may be that the name that is in here for 1926 is the name of one who passed in 1925 and the Kalendar does not give the results of the four men who passed in 1926—that may be the explanation." I have had enquiries made and I find that that is the explanation, that the name that is in the Kalendar for 1926, a Mr. Whincop, is the name of the gentleman who passed in 1925. That on the typwritten sheet which we put in on which we show that in 1926 there were eight examined and four passed, those names do not appear in the Kalendar, because the Kalendar went to press before the result of the examinations was known, but I can give you the names of those four persons now.

312. I am satisfied. One gathers from the queries submitted by an honourable member who is not here to-day, regarding the London County Council and this question of surveyorship, examinations and so on, that there has been some little difference of opinion as between the policy pursued by them and perhaps by yourselves. May I ask if on any other point in connection with your Profession, there is a difference of opinion existing to your knowledge, as between the London County Council on the one hand, and yourselves on the other?-Well, there are always differences of opinion of

course.

313. May I say acute differences of opinion? I just want to make this point clear, that there is a sort of natural difference of opinion which exists in any town, between those who are practising

24 May, 1927.]

[Continued.

an

a

architects and those who are in any kind of way controlling them. I mean architect prepares plans and submits them; the municipal authority examines them and compares them with their byelaws. Differences of opinion arise on that point; as a rule they are adjusted; and that state of things happens in London just as well as anywhere else, and as far as individual members of the Institute are concerned, they of course often find themselves differing with the London County Council on points of construction. The relationship is very friendly, particularly in the case of the present time. I continually have London Architects expressing to me their pleasure at the happy relationships that do exist between them and the London County Council, and the and courtesy, consideration general reasonableness that are manifested. Of course from time to time wider points than merely individial cases arise, and when the London County Council, for example, sets itself to revise the whole of the London Building Acts, then of course a great many questions arise upon which Architects have common feeling, and upon which the Institute comes forward as their protagonist. With regard to that at the time being there is nothing in the nature of acute feeling or strained relationships between the Institute and the County Council. We have been for some time past in communication with the Council generally on the question of amendment of the London Building Acts, and if I may read you the last letter, it at least will give you the position as it stands. It is this: Our last communication to the London County Council was on June 25th, 1926, in respect of the amendment of the London Building Acts, in which we asked for an opportunity to be given for a deputation from the Institute to wait upon the London County Council or their appropriate Committee to express our views. position is that this was acknowledged by the London County Council on July 9th, 1926, when they stated that the difficult questions of the amendment and consolidation of the London Building Acts were still under consideration by the sub-committee in question, but the matter had not reached the stage when any useful purpose would be served by the attendance of a deputation from the Royal Institute of British Architects. The suggestion that such a deputation

The

Ishould be received would be borne in mind when matters were sufficiently advanced. So we are simply waiting to be told when we can usefully come, and there is nothing that is really in any sense of the word strained between the Instituto and the London County Council. We always receive courtesy from them.

ment

Sir Frederick Rice.

314. At the last meeting a statement regarding renforced concrete regulations was put in by the witness; it was put in before he saw the questions intended to be asked by the honourable Member for Islington East. Having read those questions do you consider that your stateanswers those questions?-The questions were never submitted to me. 315. No; he intended to ask them. Chairman.] The questions are not You put in evidence, Sir Frederick. must not refer to questions that are not put in. The statement on reinforced concrete was put in.

Sir Frederick Rice.] I wanted to cut the thing short, if I could, by asking if he considered this answer was the answer to Major Tasker's questions.

Chairman.] But he has not received the questions.

Witness.] No, the questions have never been put to me, Sir Frederick.

Sir Frederick Rice.] Then I have no further question on that. With regard to steel frame buildings did the honourable Member for Islington East put any questions to you with regard to steel frame buildings? I rather think he did.

Mr. Gardner.] Major Tasker put a question at a former meeting about steel frame buildings, to which this is the