21 June, 1927.]

[Continued.

as

to say that many Architects are Members of the Structural Engineers Institution, and it would be quite in order to call them Structural Engineers as well Registered Architects. (Colonel Moore.) In other words, there is no objection to them calling themselves Structural Engineers.

Chairman.

701. One of our Members has to leave very shortly, and we are very anxious that he should be able to put his questions. I think perhaps if we took these points as they arise in the précis, it might be for the convenience of the Committee. (To the Witness.) First of all you say that in the first place the Bill contains no definition of this scope of the profession of of an Architect, neither does the Charter of the Roya! Institute of British Architects contain any description of Architecture. Do you propose to suggest any definition?—No, that is the difficulty, but as Engineers our Charter does define what a Civil Engineer is, and unless there was some definition here they may under the powers of this Bill trespass at any rate on the Charter that the Civil Engineer3 have had for 100 years now. What we have to do is well defined and the work we have to do is specified. It has been rather suggested even in the evidence here that bridges would come within the province of Architecture. Waterloo

Bridge is one case that was mentioned. Waterloo Bridge was done by one of our most eminent of Engineers, with no Archi. tects at all, and it is considered from an Architectural point of view a bridge of great beauty. I do not speak to that point, but there it is.

702. Then you go on to say that the Charter of the Royal Institute of British Architects contains no description of Architecture. Do not you think that is rather a good reason for not defining it in the Bill? So long as there are no other roving clauses in the Bill that would take them outside, let the Charter stand where it is; but I say there is a roving clause in this Bill in the Admission Committee. That is why the Civil Engineers are asking the permission of this Committee to take their names out of Schedule 2, because it might be considered that if Structural Engineers, who design all iron work and so forth, were admitted and we on that Committee, it might be

were

tantamount to our admitting that that was architectural work, and we say it is

not.

Sir Alfred Hopkinson.] There are just one or two points I would like to ask about. It is rather difficult exactly to separate the points.

Chairman.

703. Then we will go on to the next point. (To the Witness.) Then you go on to say that the powers placed by the Bill in the hands of the Royal Institute of British Architects would enable the Council of that Institute to register as Architects persons practising any kind of professional work which they might choose to regard as Architecture? That is so.

704. Is that so in the Bill? Surely the qualifications of registration are set out in the Bill?-Under the Bill they can draw in now men who have passed no examinations and do not know anything of that kind. Some may be of very good standing, but the Committee could pass, under this Bill, as architects people who are not architects in my opinion, never were architects, and never will architects.

Mr. Tasker.

be

705. But, Mr. Chairman, has not that always been so with the Roval Institute of British Architects-I do not know. (To the Witness.) Is it not a fact that most of the Fellows never have passed an examination--that they have been selected as Fellows because of their eminence as Architects? That is so, but I am talking about the large body who are coming in in a third or fourth-rate position. There is the Registered Architect, those who are coming in now, 4,000 appears to be the numbers assumed in Major Barnes' evidence, who are practising work that may be architecture and may be engineering, and they are to come in without any examination, provided the Admission Committee will allow them to come in.

706. That is to say, anyone appearing on the Second Schedule you fear might be described as Architects under this Bill— any of these Members belonging to the Institution set out in the Second

Schedule? Yes, Members of those professions might be admitted by the Admission Committee, and, ipso facto, they would be taken in as Registered Architects although they are Engineers or Members of other Institutions.

Chairman.] I am afraid that the suggestion that I made cannot be quite followed out, because if one or two of the Members have to go we shall not get to the end before they have departed; so I am afraid we must go back to the rule which we have adopted hitherto, and ask the Members of the Committee to put any question they like to you upon the précis.

Mr. William Ilirst.] That has been our previous practice.

Chairman.] I know, but I thought we would alter it to-day, because no general statement was made by the witness, and therefore I thought we would go through the précis; but in view of the fact that some of the Members have to go, I think it will be better to go back to the old practice.

Sir Alfred Hopkinson.

707. There are just two or three things I want to ask you. The first was the point you raised last, that is about including the Institution of Civil Engineers in the Second Schedule-you would rather have that excluded?-Yes, if the Committee will allow it.

708. I do not know why it was put in; I presume it was out of courtesy to the Civil Engineers?-I really do not know, because it is such a lopsided provision. You have 12 Architects; we come in, in the Schedule, and some of the others may have no interest whatever in it.

709. But on the whole you prefer that that should be out?-Yes. If we were on that Committee we should be outvoted always and then it might be said: you admitted these men as Architects and they are Engineers.

710. On the other hand, your case might be so considerable as to carry it unanimously with you?-We should not oppose it for the sake of opposing it. 711. But on the whole you rather have it out?-Quite.

would

712. There might be powers to add afterwards?-Yes.

713. Then there are just one or two other points about your Association. You have found the advantage of getting the incorporation under Royal Charter, that kind of State recognition I presume?— Yes; we have had it for 100 years now. 714. And thereby your powers defined?-Yes, and very fully set out in our Charter.

are

715. Then you have instituted of course under that and in conformity with that

62446

Charter, regulations for admission to your Institute?-Quite.

716. When you were first founded, did you admit practising Engineers apart from an examination?—Yes; we had no examination for many years afterwards.

717. It was found necessary to admit practising Engineers?-It was the very infancy of the profession, so that of course there it was.

718. As a matter of fact one may take that as a requisite condition whenever you get an Institution of this sort intended to raise the character of the professions? Yes, it was necessary in the past, that is when you were starting a new Institution, but that is not the case under this Bill.

719. And it would not be unnatural if the Architects found something of the same kind?-The Architects are already established and they have men of eminence in their Institute to-day.

720. They have no statutory recognition? They have a Charter.

721. Statutory ?-I do not follow the difference.

722. One is an Act of Parliament and the other is a Royal Charter?-Ours is a Royal Charter.

723. Have you found that the establishment of your examinations has had a beneficial effect upon the profession?— I think so, and in the interests of th public it is very essential.

724. And in addition to that, in addi tion to your examination system which has worked satisfactorily, you want to be able to give the hall mark of the letters which indicate membership of your Institute?-We have it.

725. And you have that recognition under your Royal Charter?--Yes.

726. Would it not be an advantage to the architectural profession to have some recognition of that sort if they have examinations, and have what is equivalent to a title ?-They have that now. The F.R.I.B.A. and the A.R.I.B.A. are marks of high distinction in their profession. As I understand this Bill it is to let in without examination men that this Admission Committee will say are Registered Architects, and according to the evidence of a Vice-President of the Institution before this Committee, when their examination does come about, it is to be of a lesser degree, not such an onerous examination as exists now with their examinations for the F.R.I.B.A. D 4

727. That will be within the power of the body which conducts it? Yes, but he distinctly said it would not be of the same standard.

728. You set you standard at a high one? Our standard is not altered to suit conditions. We recognise certain University degrees in Engineering, but candidates must pass our examination. We do not bring others in without examination, unless it is men of great eminence.

729. Have you any relationship between your examining body which deals with educatinoal matters, and the schools and universities ?-We accept a number of Engineering degrees.

730. And that policy is quite a sound one? We think so.

731. And would be also good where there are schools of architecture established? I should presume so; for their own particular profession they are as good for the Architects as they are for Engineers.

737. It is engineering but is it not also a beautiful piece of architecture?—Yes. It shows that engineers in erecting a bridge of that kind do not deface the earth. They can design a structure worth looking at without an architect. We have many cases where we have them in combination.

738. Would you not object very much to the idea if an engineer has a beautiful design of a building or a portion of a building, that he should be debarred from charging for work done in making those designs? If he did it as an engineer he should be paid his engineering fees, and he would get them.

739. But supposing the work is not under any reasonable definition of Architecture would you include it? I think as the Bill here says if he is a Registered Architect, then he is entitled to make the charges. If he holds himself out to be a Registered Architect and he is not one, he ought not to be able to recover his fees; that is a fraud.

740. That is a common fraud? Yes.

man

an

Per

733. That clause you would say ought to be deleted?-Absolutely I say so. haps I ought not to say that, because what happens is that Architects do not much mind, but it is opening the door broad and wide.

734. It is useful to us to have your view as representing the leading technical Institute in the country?-I hope I am not going outside my province.

735. You would object, I suppose, if I may ask a leading question, to any clause like the original clause 12 of the Bill. Do you remember it: "A person shall not be entitled to recover any charge in any Court of Law for any professional services rendered as an Architect." Many Engineers do, as you have pointed out, what is really architectural work? I do not admit it is architectural work. They do buildings of all kinds; I have done it myself.

736. Take Waterloo Bridge again?That is strictly engineering, pure and simple.

742. Although that work is the construction of a building which is really architectural work? It is in the nature of architectural work. It is a question

of degree. I look upon all these buildings as structures. For instance, I have done Victoria Station; I was engineer for that. We had no architect for that.

K

743. You would make a station with a beautiful front if you had money enough to do it? The annex to the station was done in my office. I had architectural assistants and we had engineering assistants and so forth.

744. Then may we take it shortly that a form of statutory recognition and a title tends to improve the status of the profession? I think so, any profession, provided the titles which you get are adequately obtained by educational standard.

745. But you do object to anything which one might call a back door into the profession?-Quite.

746. But supposing you do that, would the objection to the Bill go in its

amended form if you close that back door, and make it perfectly clear that there is nothing whatever to interfere with the appointment of an engineer to do any work for which he is qualified?— That an engineer may do his work in the future, as he does to-day.

747. You might call it architecture or not? I do not care what they call it. If that is reserved to him in the future, then we have all we want.

749. You are strong on the point that there should be nothing to hamper his freedom to do that sort of thing, and get the charges for the work done?-As far as the charges are concerned they are a matter between the Engineer and his client. We impose no scale of charges on our Members. The Architects have got a minimum scale of charges. have no such thing in our Institution.

We

749. You are entirely in favour of free bargaining?-Absolutely.

750. And you want nothing but free bargaining and free employment for work of that kind?-That is so; particularly that we should not be debarred from undertaking work that we have hitherto done. I may say that the rather protective provision in clause 11 comes really for the present at the bottom of page 5: "Provided that subject to the provisions of this section nothing in this Act shall prevent any local authority or person performing any Act or operations in connection with the construction of buildings which such local authority or person was entitled to perform prior to the passing of this Act"that is only for the existing people. That proviso only, as far as I read it, protects people of to-day. Why should not my son, if I had got a son in the profession, go on and do the same as I have done. Under this it does not go far enough. That proviso ought to come out. They are protected if you stop at the word "offence." The proviso ought not to be there at all. It is a limitation in my judgment.

751. In fact the proviso is no good under the altered clause?-I say it is no good at all, but it means that those who come after the present Engineers who are carrying out certain things to-day could not carry out that work in the future.

752. Then if the clause were amended to apply to Registered Architects only,

never

you think the Bill would be improved by getting that?—Yes. May I put it shortly, in this way: if they went under their present Charter and they got an Order in Council that all of those who have passed their examinations could call themselves Registered Architects, they would have everything without this Bill. We have altered our original Charter; we did not tread on anybody's toes at all, but we went to the Privy Council for a supplemental Charter, and under our by-laws approved by them we can call ourselves Chartered Civil Engineers. If they called themselves Registered Architects or whatever they like, and did it under their Charter, this thing goes by the board.

753. Any title which is practically equivalent to a degree in a sense?—Yes, practically. We have no objection whatever to registration.

For

754. Then just assume for the sake of argument that it exists, to deal with by Bill instead of by amending Charter, you would think it would be improved by three amendments which were mentioned. One is the omission of your name in the schedule; another is the omission of a proviso in Clause 11 as amended, and the other is the closing of the back door into the profession?-That is some of them. It is so difficult in a Bill of this sort where one does not quite know where it begins and where it ends, to say that that would be satisfactory. There might be other points, if one were looking into it for the purpose of amendment. instance, there is Clause 20, which I have said nothing about: "The provisions of this Act, other than the provisions of the section of this Act of which the marginal note is use of titles' shall not, unless he is a registered person, apply to any person who is a professional member of any of the bodies specified in the second schedule." If you are good enough to take the Civil Engineers out of the second schedule, I should like, if the Bill goes forward, for it to read something in this way: "The provisions of this Act, other than the provisions of the section of this Act of which the marginal note is use of titles' shall not, unless he is a registered person, apply to any person who is or at any time hereafter may be a corporate member of the Institution of Civil Engineers."

6

[Continued.

755. It is not altogether dissimilar in principle from the point you were raising about the proviso in Clause 11?—No, it is the same thing, but that would leave our corporate members outside the provisions of this Bill. But we do ask that any man who calls himself a Civil Engineer should not be affected in any way. They must look after themselves.

756. But they have not got your hallmark, that is all? That is right, and I think they ought to go on earning their living as in the past, if they like.

Chairman.

757. There is one point arising out of that. I think that you did promote a Bill, did you not, with the object that none but qualified engineers should do engineering work? Yes, we did start a Bill of that sort, but under our conditions we have so many engineering institutions, and we did not proceed with the Bill.

758. But that was the object of the Bill? We went out to feel really what could be done, because in the interest of the public one ought not to have a chance Bill.

759. That Bill was called I think the Civil Engineers Registration Bill?--That is so.

760. And now you are objecting to the Architects having a Registration Bill?— No, not the slightest, provided they do not enlarge their powers to affect us detrimentally.

Sir Alfred Hopkinson.

761. What became of your Bill?-We did not proceed with it. Engineering is so much broader. All kinds of Engineers were affected and some with big Institutions; and we found there was a good deal of trouble; for instance a mining Engineer may say: I am a Civil Engineer.

762. There is no hard and fast line between the different Engineers?—No, different branches had their own Institutions and we found difficulties in bringing in anything for only civil engineers, and we went to the Privy Council and got what was necessary.

763. And the mechanical engineers are something on the same kind of ground?— Not quite; they have no Charter.

Sir Murdoch Macdonald. 764. You have in answer to the questions that have been put to you, Sir Charles, very clearly explained the general position as far as the Civil Engineers are concerned, but what it really amounts to I suppose is this, that at one time in the past there was very little differentiation between an Architect and what is to-day an Engineer. In other words a certain class of men built structures such as bridges who could call themselves, or did in fact call themselves, occasionally, Architects? Well, I do not know of any Architects who have built bridges other than estate bridges, it may be, and that sort of thing.

765. Have you any idea that if this Bill were passed the Registered Architects would encroach on the duties that are carried out to-day by Civil Engineers? I think so, very decidedly, because there are men, as I have tried to explain, who are doing the work. We will take all these skeleton buildings-big buildings. The iron work or steel structure of those is done by Engineers; they were designed by Engineers; and the Architect does all the other portion of it -the stone work and the filling-in of the buildings. They may turn round and say that these men do in a measure Architectural work. It is interwoven, admit; it is a close point, and if they elect them as Registered Architects, then they may turn right over and go fci the whole thing, doing the whole work as Architects, and we should lose men

as

Engineers; they are trained as Engineers for all the calculations of these structures, and it is in the interest of the public that for buildings of that sort, that those designing should thoroughly understand the strains and what each part of that structure has to do. There is no room for doubt about it.

766. There has been a book published recently, "The Architect and History," which gives a brief résumé of Architecture throughout the ages. In it it is shown that there was no differentiation really for the carrying out of public works among the various classes of people, such as are differentiated to-day in Engineers and Architects?-No. Of course things have got so big that we have gone out into our various branches and specialised, and that is essential.