[Continued.

767. About 100 years ago your Institu. tion started really, and specialised in the Civil Engineering side?-Yes; all big structures, docks and warehouses, and railways and canals, and bridges of all descriptions; everything that one might say was structural work. Big outfall sewers and schemes have all been done by engineers.

768. And having specialised, you have taken care to see that, as far as you humanly can, all your members are thoroughly competent to carry out their work? That is so; we have done every. thing. In fact, every time we have found there has been the slightest bit of weakness anywhere that has been shown, we have stiffened up our provisions so as to try and meet those cases, and for 100 years we have been at it now, and

over.

769. So that as a matter of fact to-day your Members who enter are men highly qualified by severe examination or strenuous examination?—Yes; and I may say that many of the younger Members who come in with degrees that are accepted, have got theoretical education of a high order. Then all they want after that is the practical experience to be able to apply it, and they have to get that before we make them associate nembers.

770. And having done all that, you have brought your Institution and the qualifications of your Members at the present day to an extremely high pitch, higher, I suppose you will agree, than that of any other Institution, say, for instance, such as the Royal Institute of British Architects has done in regard to Architects I do not like anything in the nature of comparisons, but I do say this. As far as our Institution is concerned, I think it is equipped by our rules and regulations, which are very closely conformed to, as highly as you can get it.

771. At any rate, having brought your Institution to this high pitch and the qualification of your Members to such a high stage, you feel that it is wrong that a Bill of this sort should be passed, which would not define the duties which, say, Registered Architects would undertake?—Yes, I agree. This Bill, as it is now, may trespass, and I believe it would trespass, upon the Members of our Institution and their means of invelihood.

772. You are not aware of, possibly, or you may not have seen this book, but

the book I have just referred to and which has been sent out by the Royal Institute of British Architects says: that there is a feeling that Architects would like to take back for instance bridge building once again, and you, I suppose, would say that the qualifications your Institution Members possess would fit them very much better for that purpose than Architects?-Absolutely. That is for all the constructional and designing portion of it. There are cases where quite useful co-operation between the two professions has taken place. The Archi tects will say: we will do the elevation of this thing and make it harmonise with the surroundings better than an ordinary engineer might be able to do. So there is a combination. It is often worked out in practice in that way; but, to take the designing of the bridges, that is purely Civil Engineering for which we exist to-day.

773. And you would object very strenuously if it were felt that this Bill was going to take away from your Members that right? Supposing in this Bill they had proposed to alter their Charter, and in their proposed alterations of the Charter they sought powers over the same field of work as our Charter covers we should oppose it for everything we were worth. There would not be room for two Institutions, and lots of other people would oppose them.

774. In other words, your difficulty is that there is no definition of the word "Architects" to confine them within any specific limits? No. That is why I have made this suggestion that instead of having this Bill at all, they should do much the same as we did, let their Charter stand where it is, and then seek the power through the Privy Council to admit anybody who has passed their examinations or under other conditions laid down by them, be admitted into their Institution as Registered Architects.

775. So that apart really from the interests of either Institution, it would really be damaging to the public interests to pass a Bill of this sort? I think so as it is; that is view. my

776. Because it would prevent a qualified body of people normally undertaking that for which they work?—Yes, it might interfere with them, and what they have in the past been doing, and I believe been doing satisfactorily for the

as to the qualifications of persons admitted to the Institution." You have already shown, I think, in Clause 4 of your précis that the same safeguards would not be provided under the Bill that we are now considering. I do not know what safeguard would be provided after the first stage, that is, the first five years, I take it, is over; because up to the end of five years no end of these people will come in without any examination what

ever.

The Admission Committee has the great power, on which there are twelve Architects; they can let anybody in and say he is now entitled to be called a Registered Architect. I do not say they would do anything to damage their own Institution for one moment, but that is the tendency, and it is so described in Clause 5, on the top of page 3, 66 Every person (i) who was for a period of five years immediately prior to and is at the passing of this Act a bona fide Architectural Assistant." I have known Architectural Assistants in my experience for the last 50 years, and very excellent men indeed, to do what I call the ornamental drawing in the Office, but to elevate them and say they are by right of this Bill to come in as Architects, well, I do not not know what to say about it.

791. In other words those people may be great artists, but they have not the qualifications that you refer to in clause 8 of your precis in which you say "the Council submit to the Committee that, in structures of the character referred to, the safety of the public depends wholly, and the convenience of the public depends very largely, on the correct application of the scientific principles of construction." You are suggesting that these assistants, whilst they may be quite competent artists, are not in possession of that scientific principle of construction? That is so; that they may be very excellent draughtsmen but if you ask them to calculate the strength of a girder or a column or anything of the sort, they are absolutely incompetent to do it. I do not say it in any way derogatory to these men; they are all doing their own duty in life and doing it well, but because they have been architectural assistants in a drawing office for 5 years, if they are to be registered architects, if it is worth anything, it must convey a guarantee to the public that that man is a man of knowledge in all its bearings.

[Continued.

792. May I take it that this Bill, if passed into an Act of Parliament, would be to convey that impression, arising from the guarantee?-Yes.

793. And it would serve no purpose if it failed in that respect?-That is so. It would really be misleading if a man got in without the qualifications that the letters after his name would lead one to believe he possessed.

794. May I direct your attention to paragraph 9: "In addition "In addition to prejudicial results to individual members of the Institution, the Council find strong reason to anticipate serious injury to the interests of the engineering profession generally, and particularly to those of the Institution of Civil Engineers as a body" and you state that "Neither the provisons of clauses 11 and 20 in the Bill as read a second time nor the proposed substitution of ' registered Architect' etc. for 'architect' would adequately safeguard those interests" and then you give certain reasons?—Yes.

795. Those reasons briefly summed up amount almost to a charge of incompetency on the part of some of those who would be admitted as Architects under this Bill?-I am afraid that would be so, but I would like that to be taken quite fairly. I would not anticipate that the Royal Institute of British Architects as a Council would admit somebody they knew had not got some substantial qualifications. But what I do fear under this Bill is that you have got an admission Committee with 12 architects, and other people who may have no interest whatever from that particular point of view. They say: "Yes, we agree and he is passed in although he may be no architect.

796. And you emphasise that position again in paragraph 12, where you say "The Bill would create a class of Architects (or, with the proposed amendment, a class of registered architects') possessing qualifications of lower standard than those possessed by Members of the Royal Institute of British Architects." At this time I suppose you mean?-At the present time, and I go further. If you refer to the evidence of Major Barnes, on page 11 you will see that he does say that these registered architects who are going to be admitted, and those who will follow them will be of a lower standard of examination than the present ones, so you will have an F.R.I.B.A., A.R.I.B.A.

[Continued.

and Licentiate, and you will also have a Registered Architect examination which is something less in standard than the previous ones; he says so.

797. You go even further than that, and you state that the Bill if passed "would be an inducement to seek a qualification of lower standard but conferring equal legal recognition "?—Yes, that is so. That is a man would get in on a lower standard of examinationthat is after the 5 years period. He gets in without any to begin with, but after the 5 years he will come in on a lower standard, and will be as much a Registered Architect as a Member of the Royal Institute of British Architects will be.

798. May I direct your attention to paragraph 13. There you make an assertion of some importance from the public point of view, because you say that "The Royal Institute of British Architects, whilst chartered for a purpose

similar to that for which the Institution of Civil Engineers was chartered, namely promoting and facilitating the acquirement of knowledge," "has extended its functions to the promotion of the interests of its individual members in their

relations with the public and you say "it has laid down in considerable detail a scale of professional charges "?—Yes.

799. "And regards deviation from that scale on the part of its members as unprofessional conduct. Its action in the matter of building contracts, also has been referred to." But are we to understand that you feel that if this Bill should become an Act of Parliament, then the Architects will pay more attention to the promotion of the interests of their individual members, than they have hitherto done to the interests of the public who engage them?-I would not like to go as far as that, but what I do say is that they have a scale of minimum charges which they are supposed, when they come into the Institution, to make for all their work. These new members who would be brought in are largely men not of the same standard as the F.R.I. and A.R.I. If they ask the same amount for their services as the Royal Institute lay down they will get no work at all and will be squeezed out. I am only putting that in for what it is worth that there are men who are getting a living now, and if they came in under these rules and

doubtful indeed if If I were going

regulations, it is very they would get one. to engage an architect I should go to the biggest man I could get.

800. Do you really feel that the passing of the Bill would in form have the effect of making the architectural profession a closed profession? I think it would, because I say if they raise the fees like this, a certain number of these men who are quite good enough for secondary work, would not get work.

801. So the result would be that the individual member would be fairly well served by the passing of this Bill into an Act, and the public interest would rather severely suffer? I would rather leave that to the Committee.

802. I am endeavouring to get from you an expression of an opinion, because I think it would be of some use to the Committee? That is a political point of view which I ought not to deal with. I would rather deal with it from a professional point of view.

803. It surely does affect the professional standing of the people engaged in this work?-I go this far: if you let these people in under the Admission Committee, you will have a large class of men who will be Registered Architects the same as the upper grades, will be registered architects, and those men will not in a great number of cases, be fit to take the responsibilities that the public might assume they are capable of taking, or should be capable of taking.

804. From your experience do you think the Royal Institute of British Architects would be able to get the same satisfaction from the provisions of their Charter, that you have done, if they were to pursue the course that you put forward?—I think so absolutely. If I may give my opinion, I think that is the proper way to do this, because there is no alteration of the conditions of our Charter. They call themselves registered architects under whatever condition the Council of the Royal Institute of British Architects thinks necessary.

can

805. And you really think that if the Bill passes, there will be nothing at all to prevent the Royal Institute of British Architects from raising its scale of charges to any desired figure? They can do what they like; they have raised their fees since the war, I think. Their present fees have been put up, and of course,

[Continued.

when one comes to consider that the fees have been put up and the work costs two and a half times as much as it used to before the war, it is a pretty considerable thing.

Mr. Tasker.

806. Sir Charles, has your Institution experienced any difficulty in defining what you would regard as a civil engineer? No. I think if you take our Charter, it is sufficiently wide, and it does describe the works and the nature of the works that come within our Charter, and the province of a civil engineer to carry out.

807. Then I gather that one of your fears is this, that if the Royal Institute of British Architects cannot define what an architect is under their Bill, they may experience some difficulty in defining what is architectural work?—Yes.

808. It is I think, the usual practice of civil engineers to call in the aid of architects and sculptors for the adornment of edifices? That is absolutely so, to endow our work with artistic merit, to mention a very well known case.

809. I hope you are not referring to Waterloo Bridge?—No, I am not.

810. And your suggestion, which I am sure will receive the consideration, not only of the Committee of the Royal Institute of British Architects, is, that your difficulty, when you are seeking registration is one which confronts the architects to-day, and you solved through the powers conferred upon your Institute in your Charter?-No, that is not quite so, because what we solved there was to give us a right to a distinctive name, that is, "chartered civil engineer." Any man can call himself a civil engineer today. What this Bill is now doing is going to create a new class, that is, registered architect, and to give power to admit to that grade certain individuals who may be doing civil engineering work.

Mr. Tacker.

811. I think, Mr. Chairman, that one ought to ask Sir Charles about the Royal Institute of British Architects, but in. fact the Royal Institute of British Architects do enjoy an equal right under their Charter to call themselves Chartered Architects? Then what more do they want?

a

812. That is not for me to say. That is what I would like to know.

Dr. Watts.

813. I should like to ask Sir Charles one or two questions. The Institution of Civil Engineers do not object, in the first place, to the registration of Architects? -Not at all.

814. What you do appear to object to is Clause 5, where they take in certain people without examination?-No; I would not like to say that. We have said already in my précis that it is impossible for us, as this Bill is drawn, io suggest amendments for it.

815. I understood you to say that that was your personal objection to taking people in, because they are already in practice or are already serving articles to an architect, or an architect's assistant?No. That is a matter for the Royal Institute to take in any quality they like under their own rules and regula tions, but the Admission Committee is quite a different thing, and they can take in men who are doing what we say is engineering work to-day. Then once having brought them in, they say that it was admitted by you that it was architecture, supposing we were left in the second schedule.

Chairman.

816. You would be there to object?But we are only one. There are twelve architects, and where are we? The others are thrown in to make a little bit of leaven, and they do not care two straws about our interests.

was

Dr. Watts.

817. Have you any knowledge of what done by other institutions when they got registration? Take, for inthe Medical profession and stance, Dentists? Most people who have been acting in the medical profession must have passed their examination.

818. But when the Medical Acts were passed in 1858 they had to register everybody?-I admit at once that there is always difficulty when you are starting a new registration. Now the architects have had their Charter for years; it is not a new thing at all. Now they are trying to put some addition of not the same quality.

819. You do not object to the registration of architects, but at the same