measure. It must also be borne in mind

that this scheme of so-called " voluntary registration was inaugurated at a time when the Bill was still in draft form and had not even received its First Reading in Parliament. When the first draft Bill was circulated, not only my Society, but other Societies raised strong objections to the terms of this measure, and it was amended. Then a second draft Bill appeared. Pressure must have been brought to bear on the promoters, for yet another Bill, the third Bill, was prepared, and this was the Bill that was presented to Parliament. Up to the time of the issue of the second draft Bill, although my Association had continually asked for the opportunity to meet the promoters in conference, it was ignored, and it was not until Our Council intimated that they would resolutely oppose the measure as it then stood that the promoters of the Bill agreed to meet us in conference, but it was then too late to effect any material change in the Bill. I shall have something more to say later on in regard to the Institute, but members of your Committee, Sir, will probably appreciate after the remarks i have made, that the Institute is not so keen on the welfare of practitioners outside their own ranks as they would appear to endeavour to lead you to believe.

a

There is one other matter I should like to introduce by way of showing that little prejudice, if I may use that word, shown by the Royal Institute of British Architects against their contemporaries. We have several members in Bombay, and, among them, are two gentlemen who are also members of the Bombay Architectural Association, Society allied to the Royal Institute. This Society in Bombay produces a Year Book containing a list of its members. I understand that in publishing a member's name it adds thereto a title or designation of the other professional societies to which the member belongs. The two members I am speaking of requested the Secretary of the Bombay Association to add to their names the designatory letters "F.I.A.A.," indicating that they were also members of the Incorporated Association of Architects, whereupon it would appear that the Secretary communicated with the Secretary of the Royal Institute of British Architect here in London asking for the Institute's sanction.

Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors.

In reply to your letter of the 20th October, the R.I.B.A. and its Allied Societies have from the first done their best to discourage any qualified Architect from having anything to do with the socalled "Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors." This attitude has been clearly adopted from the start by the Allied Societies Conference, of which of course the Bombay Architectural Association is a member. Your Council will be acting in accordance with the wishes both of the Council and of the Conference if they do their best to discourage their members from joining this new body, and if they refuse to print its initials in the Year Book, we shall not print its initials in the R.I.B.A. Kalendar. Yours faithfully,

To:

(Signed) Ian MacAlister, Secretary.

Joint Honorary Secretary,
P.W.D. Secretariat,
Fort Bombay."

Immediately on receipt of a communication from Bombay enclosing a copy of this letter, our Secretary communicated with the Secretary of the Royal Institute, requesting him to be good enough to confirm or deny the transmission of the objectionable communication.

Our

Secretary's letter was delivered by hand, but no reply thereto was vouchsafed by the Institute's Secretary. If the latter, a responsible official of the R.I.B.A., cannot extend to a sister organisation the common and customary courtesies expected from a body of its standing, what can our members expect should the body that employs him be given the powers that it seeks in this Bill? When Major Barnes gave his evidence before you, he passed up copies of his Institute's Kalendar, but he omitted to mention that although he did not despise the assistance of this Association and although his Institute had deemed us worthy of inclusion in the learned bodies constituting the Board of Architectural Education they

had. behind our backs, done their level best to belittle and damage our status. But, apart from this consideration, I maintain that our request that the Council should be an independent statutory Board is a fair request, and that it should be granted in the interests not only of the professional bodies concerned but of the general public.

no

We now come to the second suggested amendment:—Persons entitled to be registered without examination; Clause 5. My Association considers that present members of the Institute, including, of course, its allied Societies and architect members of my Association should be included in this clause. You, Sir, and the members of your Committee will doubt appreciate that if this Bill becomes law, the duties of the Registrar will undoubtedly be very heavy, at any rate during his first year of office. At one of the conferences held between representatives of the Royal Institute and my Association, I suggested to Major Barnes that a tremendous amount of the Registrar's work could be saved if our respective bodies forwarded lists of members (who were qualified for registration) to be registered en bloc. Major Barnes agreed that this suggestion was a sound one, and I submit that provision be now made in the Bill to carry this scheme into effect. After all, it only affects practitioners who have already satisfied their respective societies that they are bona fide architects and, if the Registrar objects to an individual, he has still power under the Act to refer the matter to the Admission Committee. The considerations enumerated apply, of course, to present members of the respective bodies. With regard to persons who after five years from the passing of the Act apply for registration, other considerations arise. It may, and probably will,

be

stipulated by the Registration Authority that such persons must qualify by examination. To avoid the necessity of a practitioner having to pass an examination for entrance to this Association, and then having to pass another examination for registration, or vice versa, it is submitted that the passing of the Association's examination (or the Institute's or any other approved body's examination) provided such examination is approved by the Board of Architectural Education, shall qualify a person for registration. I shall also refer to this matter in Clause 6, sub-section (2).

Then I come to the Admission Committee. An amendment to Clause 5, subsection (2) affects the Admission Committee. As at present provided, this Committee is given a limited life (vide lines 32-35). We consider it should be a permanent Committee, more especially as it would undoubtedly function as an inexpensive first tribunal for persons who had been refused registration by the Registrar.

Another of our amendments provides for extra representation of this Association and the Association of Architects, Surveyors and Technical Assistants. The submission made in my previous remarks on Clause 2 (Constitution of Council) applies here also, namely, that the two Societies mentioned, in addition to the Royal Institute, exist primarily for architects and architects' assistants, and in consequence are more affected than persons not actually engaged in Architecture, although such persons may be connected with a profession whose qualifications are closely akin thereto. Before I leave. this section of the Bill, I should like to refer to paragraph 4, Clause 5, in regard to the fee payable for registration. My Association is, and always has been, in favour of the payment of a nominal fee for registration by the person registered. Later on in my evidence I shall state that we desire registration to be compulsory and not optional. If the suggestion that I have already made that the Council shall be an independent body is adopted, the annual fee for registration can be decided by agreement between various bodies represented, and I think it is safe to reckon that, with so many professional bodies represented on the Council, the fee would be left and kept as low as possible. So far as my Association is concerned, we are prepared to pay the fees for registration of our members, and I think our example would be followed by other Societies. Naturally we would desire to keep the cost low and the fee per member charged to Societies could form the standard fee for outsiders or persons not connected with a Society. It should be remembered, however, that persons practising other professions have to pay annually for a licence, for instance, the Auctioneer pays £10 per annum; an appraiser and House Agent £2 per annum, and even a pedlar has got to pay for a licence. If these considerations are borne in mind, I see no reason why an Architect should object

to the payment of a nominal annual fee for registration.

Then Qualifications for Registration (Clause 6).

With regard to sub-section 2 of this Clause, in the light of my previous remarks in regard to examinations, the amendments to this Clause may need no further explanation except that the Council shall (not may) recognise examinations approved of by the Board of Architectural Education. (See page 4, line 19.)

Discipline Committee (Clause 7, subsection (2)).

We naturally feel we should be represented on this Committee in view of the fact that some of our members may be affected. If the Royal Institute of British Architects' Council is allowed to be the Council constituted under the Bill there is little doubt that the members of the Discipline Committee appointed by the Council will be Institute members. Support is lent to this belief by the fact that their witness replying to the questions contained in paragraph 172 used the term our Discipline Committee.

Appeals against refusal to Register, &c. (Clause 10).

As I have already mentioned in dealing with the first amendment, the amendment herein suggested might render an appeal to the High Court, with its attendant expenses, unnecessary in many

cases.

Clause 11.

It is the desire of my Association that this Clause should stand. We are prepared, however, to delete the words "Architecture" or "Architectural." Sir Clement Kinloch-Cooke, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill said: "in Clause 11 we had endeavoured to safeguard the use of the word 'architect' and to preserve for that word a definite value. This is the whole aim and object of the Bill . . . to give a definite value to the word architect'."

The honourable Member for Ripon (Major Hills) also said during the course of the debate, that Clauses 11 and 12 are the Bill. I thoroughly agree with both these statements and I submit that if these two Clauses are amended, as has been suggested by the promoters of the Bill, then the Bill becomes practically worthless. The effect of the amendment, if adopted, would be to permit any person, however incompetent, to call himself and practice as an architect without

66

let or hindrance; but a class of registered architects" would be created who on the contrary would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Registration Authority and pay for its upkeep. It seems obvious that while " registered architects" would not be able to practice with the same freedom as their unregistered confreres, the only incentive offered them is the lure of the word " registered." No one troubles now, for example, whether a plumber is a registered plumber" or whether he is just a plumber; and I feel sure that any building owner would concern himself very little as to which category of architect his proposed consultant belongs.

ᏚᏅ

66

or

66

If one accepts the correctness of the statement, often repeated by the promoters of the Bill, that the original Clause 12 did not prevent any man from charging and recovering fees for professional work of an architectural nature, so long as he did not call himself an "Architect " "Architectural designer," &c., the object of the latest amendment becomes somewhat nebulous. It would certainly remove the disability created by the original Bill in far as officials of local authorities, civil and structural engineers, heads of architectural departments of co-operative societies and others, would not be permitted to call themselves "architects." But if the registered architect" is to be soon recognised as being superior to the "architect," does it not follow that these engineers and officials of various bodies, many of them highly competent men, will not content themselves with the inferior designation of plain "architect," the label of the untested or unqualified, but will take the necessary steps to become "registered architects"? The proposed amendment could therefore be of no use to competent men, but would allow the unqualified to mislead the public by representing himself to be an, and using the designation of, "architect." Can any serious advocate of registration, lend support to a measure which now side tracks the basic principle? The title of The title of "architect " must be reserved for those who have passed the necessary qualifying tests. In reference to Clause 12, we have amended the clause to read "after the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act a person shall not be entitled to recover any charge in any Court of Law for any professional services rendered as an architect unless he is entitled to the use of

are

If you will bear with me for just a few minutes, Sir (I am just about through) I should like to refer to the criticism of these two Clauses, 11 and 12, during the debate in the House of Commons. The objections urged against these clauses came from members who were undoubtedly whole heartedly in favour of the principle of registration, but who had some misapprehension in regard to persons not strictly entitled to the use of the title "Architect," but who might be employed in an advisory capacity. I believe the first objection came from the Honourable Member for the English Universities (Sir Alfred Hopkinson). Sir Alfred stated that he had a friend, a schoolmaster, who had a great knowledge of church architecture and decoration, and he went on to say that "supposing the rector and churchwardens came to see who was to advise them about these questions, i.e., some questions in connection with their church, the natural reply would have been, Go to A.B." Proceeding, Sir Alfred apprehended that his friend the schoolmaster would not be able to sue for fees if the clause objected to became law. I respectfully submit, gentlemen, that if these clauses amended as we suggest, Sir Alfred will have no cause for misapprehension. His friend the schoolmaster or any other person acting in a like capacity, will be able to sue for fees although naturally they will not sue for fees under the title of Architect." The Honourable Member for Ripon (Major Hills) had some doubt in regard to the position of Sculptors and painters, but here again the clause as amended by us would protect these professions. The Honourable Member for Inverness (Sir Murdoch Macdonald) raised the question in regard to Civil Engineers. Our amendments would not prevent a Civil Engineer suing for his fees, and there is no reason why a Civil Engineer, provided his qualifications warranted such an application, should not apply for registration as an Architect. (In this respect it should be borne in mind that the Institution of Civil Engineers are represented on the Admission Committee.) A similar consideration applies to architects or architectural assistants employed by operative societies who also desire registration. (That was a point raised by the Honourable Member for Hillsborough, Mr. Alexander), or persons occupying

CO

architectural appointments in the Services or His Majesty's Office of Works, &c., as raised by the Honourable Member for Berwick and Haddington (Colonel Crookshank). Major Athoe interposes to say it should be Navy, Army, or His Majesty's Office of Works. As a matter

of fact we have architect members in the Association who hold responsible positions not only in Municipal appointments but in the Army, Air Force, Office of Works, and the co-operative Societies. They are practitioners of proved architectural ability, and they should quite rightly be eligible for registration under this Act. I agree with the Home Secretary when he said that there were two sides to architecture, the scientific side and the artistic side. In the case of the former, Civil Engineers and Structural Engineers have a strong claim to registration; on the artistic side persons of proved artistic ability have a claim also. Under the Bill it is open to almost anyone to apply for registration as an Architect, and if there is any doubt in regard to a person's capabilities to practice as an Architect, the matter can be decided by the Admission Committee on which is represented all the professional societies who are in a position to judge such a person's qualifications. To sum up in regard to these two vital clauses, I submit that if our version of these clauses is adopted it will be in the interest not only of the architectural profession but of the general public. If our suggestions are not to be adopted, then I would suggest that all unregistered architects should be compelled to use the title "unregistered."

Dealing with the Association's amendments generally, I would remind you that practically all these amendments were suggested to the promoters of the Bill prior to the Second Reading. They satisfy, I think, practically all the objections raised on points of detail by Members of the House during the debate. There is, however, one point that I should like to refer to before finally submitting the amendments into your hands, and that is the question of Education. Although a young Institution, we have spent considerable time and thought in evolving a scheme of progressive education and in our deliberations we have always kept in mind the absolute necessity of leaving open an avenue whereby working class boys and girls may attain to the practice of the profession

of architecture. In this respect, I am in thorough agreement with the honourable Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) when he said "there are many working class boys and girls who might not be able to reach the academic standard of university training, who might possibly be able to take other qualifying examinations which would enable them to practice the profession," and I trust that this Bill will be so amended as to afford my Association and other Societies the opportunity of carrying into effect a system of examinations based on that excellent formula.

I have referred in the last paragraph of my precis of evidence to the fact that I do not consider the promoters of the Bill have done even themselves justice in connection with the promotion of the Bill.

That is for this reason, briefly, Mr. Chairman: I think it has been caused by opposition, or presumed opposition, to the Bill, but the issue at the moment is that the promoters are willing to forfeit a Bill which had a real aim to raise the status of an architect to the level it should be. My Association is still pressing for that accomplishment, as I consider that surely the time has now arrived for this profession and others to develop to some extraordinary extent in keeping to the line of modern progress, when we realise the progress which has been obtained, for example, by air craft. In other words, this is a glorious opportunity for the various architectural bodies sitting in conference, discussing and deciding issues in the light of past experiences, embodying such decisions in the Bill, and I am sure my Association at any rate, will claim that anything in the nature of a half-way measure, multiplication of words in connection with architects, a hoping for the overanxiety on the part of practitioners to register, is all tending to defeat a measure which, by careful investigation, concentration of thought and the benefit of past experiences, would have been real and not sham." I, as Trustee for 800 duly tested and qualified architects, all members of my association, with every prospect, I am glad to say, of doubling that number very soon, and certainly prior to the passing of the Bill, if this Bill does pass, am compelled to view this Bill very, very seriously, and, as you have already before you the aims, objects, and attainments of my Association, I trust that you will understand what I

66

а

have endeavoured in as few words as possible to explain. If this Bill, as at present amended by the promoters, passes through the House, it will be a Bill, to my mind, where time, thought and money have been spent for no purpose, but what is still of greater moment is that there will be more delay in the wheels of progress and accomplishment, which, were these matters investigated, would have been the cause of producing something real and beneficial both to the profession as it is to-day and to its future well-being, and, indeed, would have been in the eyes of the professional world a sign that Britain has really awakened.

The

Chairman.] I am sure we are very grateful to you for putting your case before us so excellently and in so lucid a manner. Now I think it was understood that you are going to put in your amendments, and probably the Committee would like to ask some questions. procedure that I was suggesting we should adopt was that the members should ask the questions upon each amendment. The first amendment is on Clause 2, the constitution of the Council. Does anyone want to ask any question upon that?

Colonel Moore.] I have no question at the moment to ask.

Mr. Tasker.] Is it on the amendments only?

Mr. William Hirst.] Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether it is your intention that we should deal precisely in the same manner with this gentleman as we dealt with Major Barnes, but, as I remember the situation, it was that we were allowed to ask questions in turn upon the general statement of Major Barnes, and then we came on, subsequently to that, to the amendments which Major Barnes submitted.

Chairman.] If you like that precedure, it makes no difference to me. I thought. you would ask the questions upon the amendments and then the general questions afterwards.

Sir Frederick Rice.] Are these amendments on the amended Bill, or are they amendments on the original Bill? Witness.] On the Bill as brought up to date.

Chairman.] Then we general questions first. the same procedure as beginning on the left.

will ask the We will adopt last time, only