with the education of the young men coming forward.

527. But you say that up to now you Lave done practically little if anything in regard to this. My final question is this: Do not you agree with me that it Architects are to be registered, if this Bill is to go through, that the proper Association or the proper Society in this country, and the best to have the control, would be the Royal Institute?-As I stated at a previous meeting, I consider it is wrong for any body to be the sole governing Registration Authority.

528. No, but if any body has to be, you would agree that they are the most suitable? No, certainly not.

529. You think your Association is?— No, I do not, but I think that representatives from the various professional Associations are the body that should be. 530. You know the clause in the Bill, and you know what bodies are to be represented. Would you not agree that that is satisfactory?-The Council of the Royal Institute is still the Council under the Bill. I presume that you are referring to the Council at the moment, not to the Board of Architectural Education?

531. The Board of Architectural Education which is to be set up?-The Board of Architectural Education, in its constitution is quite right, but the point is that it is the Council of the Royal Institute who are the governing Registration Authority under the Bill. 532. My question is, do not think they are the proper people?-I certainly do not.

Sir Murdoch Macdonald.

yon

and Cities." Would not bridges come under that heading?-No; I consider that bridges are the work of a civil engineer. Of course when it comes to some specific decoration the assistance of an architect would be called in.

536. Then when it had come to works in connection with railway stations and railway station buildings, would these still do you think justly come under what you would regard as the title "architecture "?-I think so.

537. And not engineering ?-Railway stations are buildings and I would take it to be architecture?

538. So you would debar (even according to what you asked in the re-introduction of Clause 12, I think it is) civil engineers who have put up all the buildings in the past, from recovering their fees?-No; they would recover their fees as engineers.

539. If these buildings were styled as coming under the head of architectureit is under Clause 12--you would debar a civil engineer as such from recovering any fees for anything that might be regarded by other people than as architecture? Well, the civil engineer would be, if he was qualified to carry out his practice as an architect, able to practice as an architect providing he registered.

was

540. In other words, you would impose upon the civil engineer a double qualification; you would make him pass both as as a civil engineer and architect ?-If he wanted to conduct his practice in both these spheres, yes.

an

541. And taking your own society, say, in particular, you are aware, of course, that in the Institution of Civil Engineers the examinations are particularly difficult examinations, that a very high standard indeed of proficiency is requisite, in passing the stresses, and strains and buildings and structures of all kinds, and notwithstanding that you would insist on his registering as an architect, which in your own case is practically no examination at all? It seems to me that first of all there has been a tendency to ask me questions relative to the suing for fees, and if a man is to sue for fees as an architect then he must be registered, whether he is a civil engineer, quantity surveyor, land surveyor or anything else. If he is specifically wanting to practise in all these professions he should be qualified, and as far as the architects are concerned he should be a registered architect.

542. So it is not a question of public convenience, or of the examinations that men have already passed by, certified and competent bodies that you are going to judge, but whether they are on this particular register or not, that they ought to conduct work and as a consequence earn fees-is that so?-I see no reason why they should not be compelled to register as registered architects. If they propose practising in architecture, I see no reason why they should not register.

66

543. And are you prepared to make this word architecture cover something which has been found practically impossible by the Royal Institute of British Architects in asking for a charter? You are faced with the difficulty of the impossibility of defining this word "architecture" you are assuming that architecture is something in your mind of a definite nature, whereas hitherto apparently it has been impossible to define it. You evidently have not recognised that fact?-I think it is regrettable that there should not be some differentiation between the professions, some demarcation line in the practice of these various professions. 1 think that surely in this era we should be able to define the word "architecture."

544. And if it is found impossible to define it then you would agree that engineers should be exempted from all regulations which should be imposed in such a register? If it was impossible to define the line between civil engineering and architecture, then you would agree, I presume, that you would not insist on engineers being included in the register for architects, if it was impossible to define it?-Exactly so; that is so. I think it is possible to define it, nevertheless.

tion is of recent formation-in September, 1925? That is so.

547. Did I understand you correctly to say that your total membership was a little over 1,000?-Yes, 1,100.

548. And further, am I right in taking it from the evidence here, that the number of Architects that you have included in that number represent roughly 70 per cent. ?-That is so.

549. May we ask if you have any idea as to what proportion of those people were associated with the Royal Institute of British Architects?-There are 50, not counting students or probationers.

550. 50 who are associated?-Who are associated.

551. Dual membership with your Association and the Royal Institute of British Architects?—Yes.

552. May I ask if you would be good enough to explain to me the Association known as the Faculty of Architects?— I am afraid I can tell you nothing whatever. I stated in my previous evidence that we had nothing whatever to do with the Faculty of Architects.

553. I thought perhaps you would know who they are?-We do not know anything about them.

555. Regarding the number of architects that you suggest you have inside your organisation, may I press further the point regarding the membership of the Royal Institute of British Architects. You admit that there are something like 50 holding a dual membership?—Yes.

556. Is it reasonable to suppose that those who were formerly members of your Association were members of the Royal Institute of British Architects were they associated with the Royal Institute of British Architects before the institution of your Association?-That is so.

557. That means to say there are something like 650 of these people who were transferred entirely from the Royal Institute of British Architects to your particular organisation?-No; they were mostly unattached, not members of the Royal Institute of British Architects at all.

558. I suggested were they members of the Royal Institute of British Architects, and you said yes.-No; the 50 are inembers.

559. No; 50 occupied dual membership between the two Associations.-Yes.

560. Then I asked you if it was reasonable to assume that the balance of the

others had previously had membership of the Royal Institute of British Architects before coming into your Association?No.

561. None at all?-None at all; mostly unattached architects.

562. I do not know whether you will consider this too personal a question, but you have the prerogative of saying whether you will answer it or not: what particular purpose is being served by the formation of the Association of Architects and Surveyors in view of the existence of so old time an Association as the Royal Institute of British Architects?-First of all. I lay claim to the fact that it is the first Association which has members from the different professions; that is to say, we have the architect, the quantity surveyor and the surveyor, municipal surveyor, municipal architect, and it was felt that there was every prospect of the development of the allied professions by listening to the views of the various angles, instead of having an isolated view shall be say, by way of example, of purely an architectural decision on a point. It was considered that by having all the various allied professions together and sitting round a common council table, that we would be able to arrive at fairer decisions in connection with the furtherance of architecture and its allied professions so far as this Association was endeavouring and is endeavouring, and is continuing to do on its behalf.

563. Is it within your knowledge as to whether the Royal Institute of British Architects take in other than architects; do they take in surveyors of the description that you have associated with your institution?—No.

564. Simply architects?-Simply architects.

565. You are quite sure?-I am perfectly sure of that.

566. There is no attempt to take in or to cater for that particular section?No.

567. In view of so definite a statement regarding that point may I ask if there was any organisation, prior to the inception of yours, which could be said to cater for surveyors of the type that you have named, that is, land surveyors, quantity surveyors, and so on?-Yes, there is a Surveyors' Institution.

568. That covers so far as you know organisation of that particular branch of the trade? That is so.

569. You go on now to say that it was in order that you might get a broader basis of discussion or conception of the allied interests as you put it, as between architects and surveyors, that your institution was formed?-Yes.

570. You do not think then that it would be advisable for the architests, from the point of view of their own profession, to remain exclusively with the Royal Institute of British Architects?I am afraid they can judge of that for themselves.

571. But what is your view?-My own view is, that certainly to-day it is an advantage to everyone to have his mind broadened as far as possible, and, by the introduction of these professions into the Council, I feel that there is a great possibility of the architect having his mind broadened, particularly relating to construction.

572. Regarding the Surveyors' Institution, may I ask you if you were a member of that?-No, Sir.

573. I mean prior to the inception of your Association?-I am not a member of the Surveyors' Institution.

574. You have not been a member?No, I am not a member, and never have been.

575. It is no use then my putting any question to you regarding that Institution?-Quite, Sir.

576. Have you anybody here who are members of that body? I mean some of your people who are attending with you here to-day? My difficulty, Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me to say so, is to find out as to why this Association was found to be necessary to be brought into operation, and I am not satified (I want to be quite fair to Mr. Forbes Campbell) that the witness has given reasonable evidence upon that point. I would like, if it is possible, to examine a surveyor, who had previous membership or association with the Institution of Surveyors that you have been good enough to refer to? I do not know whether any of my members here are members of the Surveyors' Institution or not; I rather think not.

577. But have they had membership of other Institutions? Of other Institutions, yes, but you are specifically asking of the Surveyors' Institution for the

moment.

578. Yes. We have plenty of members who are also members of the Surveyors' Institution, but they do not happen to be here to-day.

Mr. William Hirst.] May I ask, Mr. Chairman, whether it is proposed to call representatives of the Institutions to which Mr. Forbes Campbell has been good enough to refer.

Chairman.] We have not had the suggestion made.

Mr. William Hirst.] We will discuss that later.

Mr. Gardner.

579. (To the Witness.) I want to clear up one point. I understood that you said you had about 50 members of the Royal Institute of British Architects?(Major Athoe.) Yes.

580. What are they, Licentiates, Fellows or Associates?-Very approximately I know that we have two Fellows -we may have more than two-and about four Associates. The balance would be Licentiates.

Mr. Tasker.

581. I wanted to ask Mr. Forbes Campbell just one question. You had some difficulty, Mr. Forbes Campbell, in describing architects, and differentiating between an architect and a civil engineer, but would not you accept a definition something like this, that an architect is a man, a skilled professor in the art of building, whose business it is to prepare plans of edifices and supervise their erection? Would not that be a fair definition, do you think?-(Mr. Forbes Campbell.) I think that is quite a brief, fair definition.

582. Would not that be an equally fair definition to apply to a civil engineer? -Exactly the same definition, do you mean?

583. Yes, I think so-would it not? I mean you might define a bridge as a building, a railway station, water works, power station? I must really say that I do think there should be a deciding line between architecture and civil engineering, and I consider that that is a matter which should be carefully investigated.

584. Then there was another question arising out of Sir Alfred Hopkinson's examination. He was asking you at the end of our last meeting about the word "Incorporated." I rather gathered that all your Association meant in saying that you were incorporated was that you united in one body the different professions? Yes.

585. And that is why the term "Incorporated" probably was employed?-That is so.

third

Colonel Moore.

586. Mr. Forbes Campbell, I notice that in this memorandum which you have handed round to us you refer on the in the last paragraph, to page, two bodies, an Applications Board and a Council. Might I ask what are the qualifications to serve on each of those two bodies? What qualifications must the members of the Applications Board and the Council have?-First of all, generally, so far as the Applications Board is concerned, they are members who are in practice for at least seven years, and who appoint an architect to look after the architectural side, a quantity surveyor, a surveyor, and SO on; but it is more or less based on the qualifications of the member having been a practising architect, quantity surveyor, or whatever it is.

That

587. But there are no tests of an examination to which he must be himself subjected in the course of his career. He simply must be a practising Surveyor or Architect as the case may be. is the only qualification you demand of him? The particular qualifications of the member, because the Applications Committee is appointed by the Council. Particular members have their own particular qualifications, and they have been carefully investigated in order to find out the status of the men.

588. Then what are the qualifications of the members of the Council; have they got to have any particular qualifications? -The same more or less applies in so far that we have many practitioners who carried have designed and through notable buildings, for example, the Capitol Picture House, the Automobile Building, and SO on-such people as

those.

589. They are just selected because of their known abilities?-Because of their known abilities.

590. And the fact that they are practising at their profession at the moment?-Quite.

591. But no other tests from an examination point of view?-We aro unable to give any tests at the moment beyond that, but if you would like to know who they are, I have the whole list here.

Colonel Moore.] It would be interesting to pass it round, I think.

Chairman.

592. I am going to ask him to put it in. Now I would like to ask the Secretary or you if you can supply the Committee with a printed list of your membership? It is going to take some time, of course.

593. Not now; hand it in to the Clerk. We have received a number of papers from the Royal Institute of British Architects, and we should like to have similar papers from you. We would like to have a printed list of your membership. We would like to have copies of your annual Kalendar or your books; we would like to have copies of your balance sheets. We would like to have a copy of the syllabus of your examinations, copies of your examination papers; statistics of candidates who have entered for, passed or failed in their examinations, with the dates of their examinations, and the copies of your Journals or any publications that you have; and if to that you could add statistics of the Architect membership of your Association for the years 1925, 1926 and 1927, then we should have more complete knowledge on

paper

a

of vour Association ?-Quite.

(Major Athoe.) Mr. Chairman, may I say a word arising out of the request for the printed list of members? I am somewhat

in

a quandary over that particular matter because at the last meeting of my Council I had produced the draft of the year book, and I was instructed by the Council to hold up the publication of that year book because they found that many of our members were being got at by the Royal Institute of British Architects; they did not want the publication to be made so that they could be circularised broadcast by them, and I was instructed not to print the year book, and it is being held up.

Chairman.

594. Of course, if you have any objection? It is no objection on my part; 1 am really in trouble about it.

Mr. William Hirst.] What does Major Athoe mean by being "got at "? Captain Wallace.] That is just what I was going to ask.

Mr. William Hirst.

595. Would you explain what you mean by that, Major Athoe?-It is rather a loose expression, I admit, but I mean

that they have approached our members. I have knowledge that the Royal Instituto of British Architects have approached the members they know of; for instance, if their names are published in any publication I know that many of these people have received communications from the Royal Institute of British Architects.

Colonel Moore.

596. Official communications?-Official communications and circulars.

Captain Wallace.

597. Your Association would not object to any other Association comIt is municating with your members. not a secret Society is it?-No; it is the nature of the communication.

598. Surely, if they are sending an improper communication, your remedy lies in attacking them in the Courts, and it seems to me rather to be a weak case to keep your members from them. Perhaps you will explain a little further what the communication was?-(Mr. Forbes Campbell.) I would like to say that so far as my Council are concerned, they are willing to do everything within their power, to spend money, to give time and do everything possible for you in order that the Select Committee themselves should receive the information, but we do not want all that information broadcast. That is the position. I mean primarily we are dealing with the Architects Registration Bill at the moment, and it seems to me that it is up to us to give all the possible information we can to the Select Committee members at the moment. There are obviously private matters.

Chairman.

599. I have mentioned the documents which we would like to have. It is for you to say whether or not you can supply them, and if you cannot supply them perhaps you will give some reason for not doing so?-(Major Athoe.) Certainly, Sir.

Captain Wallace.

600. You will appreciate, Mr. Forbes Campbell, that this Select Committee holds its sittings in public and it is perfectly open for everybody to hear-the Press is here what the Royal Institute