網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.

99

2 June, 1908.]

Mr. HUBBARD.

(Continued.

Mr. Richards-continued.

Chairman-continued. 1982. The suggestion would give them a longer starting work-one during the daylight months time to spend in their allotments ?-Yes, that is and one during the winter months ?-I think 80. Leicester is rather proud of its allotments. that it would be a great advantage if you could

have one uniform hour of starting. Chairman.

1996. That is perfectly true, but I want to

get this from you: supposing we had this 1983. Small holdings ?-No. They are not

permanent alteration of one hour, would the labour small holdings, they are allotment gardens.

people have one hour for beginning work during

the summer months and during the late autumn Mr. Richards.

and winter months another hour for beginning 1984. I think that they improve the character work ?-I think it probable, because it would of the men. Do you think that another advantage be a waste of light in the winter months. would be gained ? Do you think, with regard

1997. Would these alterations make it easier to young men who are interested in cricket in to have some uniform time for a midday mea the summer time, I will not say football in the for working-men ?-I think so. summer time, but cricket-that it would be 1998. More than obtains at present ?-Yes ; possible for them after working hours to play a and that would be a great benefit gained no doubt. match ?-Yes, I think so.

Take Leicester, for instance. The building trades 1985. They have not the facility now for doing have their midday meal at 12 o'clock, and other so after working hours, except on Saturdays? industries have their midday meal at one o'clock; -No.

the children come home from school at 12 o'clock, 1986. Operatives can only play on Saturday and I feel sorry for the women who have to cater afternoons ?-Yes.

for three or four sets of meals in one day. 1987. Bank clerks and so on may be able to 1999. You think that that is a very desirable play after working hours, but operatives cannot. object to aim at ?-I think that it is a very desirable They are confined absolutely to Saturday object to aim at: I emphasise that fact. afternoon ?-Yes.

2000. Now, with regard to greater leisure, Mr. 1988. You think that on the whole it would Holt suggested that no such thing would be obbe beneficial ?-Yes, that is my opinion.

tained if you went to bed an hour earlier. May I

say that the people would have greater leisure for Chairman.

the enjoyment of outdoor life and all the amenities

connected with it ?-Yes, which would be an 1989. After the cross-examination do you see advantage. any reason to alter your opinion as to the

2001. Do you think that it is likely to have desirability of making a permanent alteration

any influence on the closing hours of publicin the time?-I think that a permanent alteration

houses ?-I have scarcely looked at it from that would be beneficial.

point of view. 1990. In spite of the fact that during the

2002. You have not considered that ?-I have greater part of the year more artificial light

not done so. would have to be used. If you had to begin 2003. You have nothing to say with regard to work at 6 o'clock during the winter months that ?-I have no data with regard to that. instead of at 7, would not that entail the further use of artificial light ?-It would, but I do not

Mr. Pearce. take that to be the meaning of the Bill. 1991. The Bill says that the alteration is only and that is with regard to what you mean by

2004. I should like to make one point clear, to be for six months of the year—from April to September ?-Yes, that is so ; but, as far as we

permanent. The proposals are to make a change

in the summer time ?-Yes, I understand that. are concerned, we should not commence at those

2005. And to revert to the winter practice in hours in the winter. 1992. You would not commence ?-No. We

September ?-Yes.

2006. Is that what you are in favour of ?-I am commence at 8 o'clock all the year round, and

in favour of an hour all the year round-one I take it that the Bill would only be dealing with

change. the summer months. That is how I take it. Is

2007. What value is there in calling 8 o'clock not that so ?

7 o'clock all the year round ? Of what use is Mr. Pearce.

that ?—I do not know that there is any intrinsic

value in it. 1993. Yes ?-Shall I read it ?

2008. But we are not making a proposal in which

there is no value. We are proposing to use dayChairman.

light ?--Yes. But I suggest that to get the 1994. The Bill merely says that certain advantage of the daylight you should lift the hour alterations shall be made during the months all the year. Of course, that is a matter of specified. That does not compel anybody to opinion. start work earlier or to leave off earlier or to do

Chairman, anything except what suits him ?-I quite understand that.

2009. Thank you. 1995. Is it your suggestion that if a permanent alteration were made in the time the great working

(The Witness withdrew.) organisations would have two different hours of

15*

2010. You

M

2 June, 1908.]

Sir WILLIAM RAMSAY, K.C.B.

[Continued.

[ocr errors]

Sir WILLIAM RAMSAY, K.C.B., called in; and Examined,
Chairman.

Chairman-continued. 2010. You are a Professor of Chemistry ?-I there are some employers of labour who are in am-at University College.

favour of the Bill. Sir William Mather, a large 2011. You are interested in all expedients engineer, is one of the members, and he is very for the saving of time and labour ?-I am. strongly in favour of the Bill. We were by no

2012. And generally for the greater convenience means unanimous, but there is no use in pushing of mankind ?-Quite so.

an argument which is not approved of by the whole 2013. Have you fully considered the bearings Guild. We find it generally politic when we of the Bill ?--Yes, ever since it was first suggested. disagree upon certain matters, not to push them.

2014. What are your views as regards the method Our object is to push those things which are of procedure which it contemplates adopting. useful, and upon which the whole Science Guild I think it is eminently rational. I believe that is agreed. there is some question as to whether it would be 2023. The Guild do not consider the principle advisable to make a sudden alteration of one hour of the Bill as of sufficient importance to accentuate and 20 minutes, or to divide it into four portions any cleavage of opinion amongst the members ?of 20 minutes. I am very much in favour of the No. They had pretty largely to reckon with the last proposal. As a traveller, one is always con- opinion of Sir Norman Lockyer, who is very fronted with the loss of an hour. It is a serious strongly against any alteration of time, and thing. You either are tempted to spend an hour Sir David Gill, the late Astronomer at the Cape, too much in bed, or to grumble because you get takes the same view. He thinks that it would an hour too little sleep; but I do not think anyone be a mistake to alter the time, because of the would notice four alterations of 20 minutes, and possibility of introducing confusion in reckoning, I think that, if it were possible to begin slowly I fancy. That is all. at first and for the first few years not make the 2024. And yet Sir David Gill happened to be whole alteration, at all events, it would be a at the Cape when an alteration was made in the scientific way of trying it to see whether people time ?-Yes. would submit to such an alteration, and if neces 2025. I frankly admit that it was a permanent sary the amount of time could be increased to the alteration ?-It was a permanent alteration. hour and 20 minutes proposed.

2026. In which respect it differed from the 2015. But would not that very tentative and provision of the Bill ?-Yes. experimental alteration considerably emascu 2027. The Guild did not go into the alternative late the apparent advantages to the public of the problem of having some sort of legislative sanction Bill ? People would say, We are 10 minutes for the earlier opening of the day's work ?—The earlier.” What is the good of that?-I should suggestion was made that that ought to happen, not begin with 10 minutes. Supposing that you

Supposing that you but it is obviously impracticable. You cannot began with two periods of 20 minutes, it would insist upon work being commenced at any parmake some difference. However, I do not press ticular hour by Act of Parliament, and the matter the point. I think that it might be as well to was allowed to drop. begin with the full quantity of time.

2028. And yet, in the Factory Acts, there is 3916. You think that the method suggested sumptuary legislation of that description ?-I do by the Bill is perfectly practicable ?-I think that not think that it would meet the views of the it is perfectly practicable.

supporters of the Bill that such sumptuary legis2017. Perfectly practicable and feasible, and that lation should be pushed. A Committee was legislative machinery might perfectly justifiably appointed, and it met once, and after discussion, be resorted to ?-Yes, I think so. I should like there was obviously so much difference of opinion, also to point out that from the scientific point of that the matter was dropped. view there can be no possible objection. It does 2029. And they do not contemplate resuming not interfere with any astronomical reckoning of it?-I think not. time.

2030. Evidently not. You are here to-day 2018. Nor with navigation ?-Nor with naviga- merely speaking for yourself ?-I am merely tion; in fact chronometers will run in the old speaking for myself. fashion. Every instrument required to keep 2031. Will you make any general observations accurate time will go as before.

on the bearings of the Bill ?— With regard to the 2019. Have the astronomers of the Science student question, I think that it ought to be Guild considered the Bill ?—Yes, and the feeling noticed that there are very large numbers of of the Science Guild, I am sorry to say, is that any

students and school children in the country. tampering with time is a mistake. We discussed I come into contact with large bodies of students the point, but I could not convince them. I who spend their Saturday afternoons in playing dare say that

you will hear their evidence that it is games for the most part. I think that it is a great mistake to tamper with time.

obvious that if they could get more light for their 2020. How is the Guild composed ? Is it games it would be a great advantage. Then composed mainly of astronomical people ?–No. there is another point with regard to which I do the Chairman, Sir Norman Lockyer, happens to not know whether it has been seriously considered, be an astronomer.

and that is the question of eyesight. Has that 2021. The Guild is mainly composed of scientific been thought of? There is no question that people ?—Yes, almost entirely scientific people, there is very much less danger to the eyes if dayor people who take an interest in science.

light be used, than there is if artificial light be used. 2022. Have they practically unanimously de 2032. I think that that is generally admitted ? cided to oppose the Bill ?- No. On the contrary -The lengthening of the hours of daylight would

do

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL:

101

2 June, 1908.]

Sir WILLIAM RAMSAY, K.C.B.

[Continued.

a

Chairman-continued.

Mr. Holt-continued. do a good deal to relieve the strain on children's Is it entirely a question of play-time for children ? eyes, and it certainly would have some effect. -And gain of light for working-men.

2033. From the scientific point of view, you 2044. Increased light for working-men ?yourself do not see any valid or insurmountable Increased light for working-men, and for all the objection to some alteration being made in the professions. In all the employments in which time ?–I can see absolutely none.

light is an advantage, practically everyone will 2034. Apart from the question of method ? save eyesight in the long run. Yes, I can see absolutely none.

2045. I do not quite understand why it is 2035. You would most decidedly be in favour that you think this could not be done by volunof the gradual alteration forecasted in the Bill, tarily adopting earlier hours in the summer rather than a permanent alteration over the months ?-It could perfectly well be done, but whole year !--- Yes, and I think the suggestion to no one would do it. It is an absolute impossibility alter the time at two o'clock on Sunday morning to get people to adopt earlier hours. is a very reasonable one, provided that the railway 2046. You thought that your friend who got companies can arrange it.

his household to rise earlier by the method which 2036. Do you say anything as to an alternative you described was eccentric ?-He lived about suggestion of an hour's alteration for certain 10 miles from everybody. The alteration interdaylight months of the year ?-You mean a com fered with nobody. plete hour ?

2047. But do you really suggest that he could 2037. A complete hour, or an hour and 20 not have obtained the same results by requesting minutes; the difference being as between his household to rise at 6 o'clock ?-I do not permanent alteration of one hour and a partial think that he could. I really think that the alteration extending over, say, five and a half servants would have struck. months ?-I think that the partial alteration is 2048. I confess that I have never found it so better.

myself, when I have wanted to do it ?--As a 2038. A permanent alteration would, in your regular matter? It is perfectly easy to get opinion, hardly be workable. It would hardly breakfast at 6 o'clock once in a way, but to breakgive the advantages ?-I do not think it would

fast regularly at 6 o'clock, I think, would involve give the advantages. Has it been considered dismissing one's domestics and finding others. that in the northern parts of Scotland, for example, 2049. I am happy to say that I have never that would involve rising in the dark for a certain wanted breakfast at 6 o'clock ?-Have you not? period during the month of April ? I think that it does involve that. A working-man, for instance,

Chairman. who has to be at his business at six o'clock, I 2050. You would bring about a miniature presume, rises about five, and if the time were strike, I suppose ?-I think that you would. It altered he would have to rise at twenty to four. would be extremely difficult. 2039. Of course, that only goes back to saying

Mr. Holt. that the Bill is not compulsory in any way ?Exactly.

2051. Do you think that these people are not 2040. It merely gives people opportunities of sufficiently educated to realise what had happened, starting work earlier if the surrounding conditions and would not discover that they had been are satisfactory, and propitious to such a course

deceived ?-I think that they would accommodate being adopted ? –Yes, that is so.

themselves to the circumstances. They 2041. And, naturally, as between the Lowlands really go according to the clock, and not according and Highlands of Scotland, even if the Bill passed

to time. in its present shape, there would be certain 2052. You think that they would not discover industries that would not start any earlier in

that they were being deceived, or that if they April ?-No.

found that they were, they would not mind ?2042. Not until the second fortnight in May, They would not mind if everyone was put into because the sun rises later, and consequently, the same position. There would be no difficulty. in April, and until the middle of May, there

2053. Have you considered the position of would be no advantage in beginning work very

people--I do not know whether you have--who much earlier, whereas in the Lowlands they might

have commercial relations, or other relations conceivably be perfectly in a position to take

all over the world, and who have to communicate full advantage of the provisions of the Bill – by cable with other places ? Might it not be very That appears to be the case. It may interest

inconvenient to them to find that the relative the Committee to know that I have lived through

time in this country and in other countries, such such a state of affairs in the Highlands, where

as the United States of America, was not always an eccentric friend of mine put his clocks two

the same ?-I do not think it would. It must hours on in order that the whole family should

be remembered that within a very narrow borderappear sufficiently early. It is a question of line-I suppose an absolute line on the surface servants. Unless they are deceived in that way,

of the globe-time alters one hour. they will not have the breakfast ready. They

2054. Quite so. I want to point out that the go according to the clock, and they have no

difference in time between, say, London and New objection to rising at 6 o'clock, if it is called eight. York, or London and Sydney, or any place that

you like to think of, that is now always the same, Mr. Holt.

would not be always the same if this Bill were 2043. I do not quite understand what you adopted ?-That would be a distinct disadvantage, consider would be the gain in adopting this Bill. and the question ought to be weighed whether

that

new

2 June, 1908.]

Sir WILLIAM RAMSAY, K.C.B.

[Continued.

Mr. Holt-continued.

Mr. Pearce-continued. that disadvantage is compensated by the corres 2074. Have you thought out the method of ponding advantage to be gained for our own making the change?-I think that the method population.

suggested in the Bill is the best that you could 2055. It is a distinct disadvantage, is it not have or that could be devised. that the relations of time between this and other 2075. I am speaking now of the practical way countries should be liable to fluctuate ?-It means with regard to the alteration of clocks. Have you that people are obliged to think—that is all thought about that?-I presume that the standard and the less thought the better.

timekeepers in the various towns and villages, 2056. I gather that you do not think that the the church clocks and so on, would be altered. servants would be able to think enough to find 2076. We had an authority on clocks here the that they had been deceived ?-I do not think other day who preferred the 20 minutes' alteration, they would.

because when you wanted to shorten the hour Mr. Pearce.

you would drop the heavy minute hand in the

public clock from 10 past the hour to half-past 2057. It is agreed that there is that difficulty the hour by gravity ? --Yes. with regard to the time of other countries ? - 2077. He recommended that the change of There is that difficulty.

shortening the hour by 20 minutes and lengthening 2058. Which Mr. Holt has pointed out ? the hour should be done by dropping the hand Certainly

from 10 minutes to the hour back to the half 2059. The sidereal day is the most invariable hour by gravity ?-Yes. time, is it not ?_Yes.

2078. And he explained to us that that was 2060. When our friend Sir Norman Lockyer better than other changes, which could not be talks of tampering with the time, do you see, or 80 conveniently made on the clocks. Do you does he see, any way of tampering with the agree with that?-I really have no knowledge of length of the sidereal day?-It is absolutely the mechanism of clocks. impossible.

2079. You cannot throw any light upon that ?2061. So far, then, we cannot do it ?-No, we No, I cannot throw any light upon that. cannot do it. 2062. The sidereal day as reckoned in ou

Chairman. measurements is 23 hours, 59 minutes and 2080. We may take it from you, Sir William, 4 seconds ?-Yes, I believe so.

that you are distinctly in favour of the 20 minutes 2063. There is a difference of 56 seconds ? - alteration as against the alteration of an hour all Yes, I think it is 56 seconds.

at once ?-Yes, I am. 2064. How has it happened that the sidereal 2081. You consider that the objections that day, which is the most invariable, has not been have generally been raised to the scheme are divided into 24 hours ?-Because we prefer to trivial ?-Yes. go by the sun, rather than by the stars.

2082. And ill-considered ?-I think they are. 2065. It is not a question of sun, is it? The I

very strongly support anything that makes for sun time varies far more than that ?—That is public convenience. We submit to an immense true, from day to day ; but from year to year, no. number of little things—I could give half-a-dozen I mean, we get the solstices occurring at the same instances, but it is not worth while—where we are times every year. We average it out. It is subject to inconvenience simply because we will merely a matter of popular convenience.

not put the things right. 'Take for example one 2066. It is a mean—an average day ?-Yes. pound notes in Scotland and Ireland. Why does

2067. It is never exactly consistent with any. one have to pay sixpence on cashing them in thing natural ?-Never.

England? We have not a uniform monetary 2068. It is a convenient arbitrary arrangement system for the country. Then why keep our for chronometers and matters of longitude, and ridiculous system of weights and measures, where so on ?-Yes.

one has to remember all sorts of things, which 2069. The variation being met by allowing for would be quite unnecessary if our system was not what is called the equation of time ?-Yes, but what it is. There are dozens of such cases, and no astronomer would ever dream of using any anything that would tend to simplify our lives in time but sidereal time.

that way and to give us less to think about would 2070. He uses sidereal time because it is so be of very great advantage. invariable ?-Because it is so invariable.

2083. The scheme, however arbitrary and 2071. The object of the Bill is not astronomical. capricious it may seem at first sight, is really a The object contemplated in the Bill is to make very workable and very feasible plan, you think?use of daylight ?-Yes.

It appears to me to be a very workable plan 2072. And as an expedient for that, there being indeed. no magic in clocks, we are proposing to indicate 2084. You think that it will conduce to economy time in the summer months differently from the in a great many households and in a large number indication in the winter months ?--Yes, that of industries ? - Yes, and I think that is very

important. It will also tend to preserve the 2073. I 'understand that you entirely agree eyes. A very large number of school children with it ?-I entirely agree with it. There is really suffer from defective sight, and no doubt anything very little inconvenience, for example, in crossing that you can do to lessen the strain on the eyes to Ireland, where there is 20 minutes' difference. will diminish that number. Giving greater dayIn a moment you have realised it.

light for work will certainly tend in that direction.

is so.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.

103

2 June, 1908.]

Sir WILLIAM RAMSAY, K.C.B.

Continued.

Chairman-continued.

Mr. Holt.
It may not do it, but it will tend in that direction. 2090. No doubt that is so ?-Yes.

2085. You are also of opinion that the advantages of the Bill could not be secured otherwise

Mr. Richards. than by legislation ?-I am quite certain of that.

2091. I suppose you are aware that this would People will not agree to anything unless they are made to do it.

probably affect 12,000,000 of young people under

the age of 20 years ?-Yes, something like that. Mr. Holt.

2092. I may speak for myself, as Mr. Holt has 2086. Do you not think that most of the children given a reference to himself. I never had to set who have defective eyesight get it before they up glasses until I was thrown into an occupation commence using their eyes by artificial light ? -- where I had to do a lot of work by artificial light. Probably the tendency is there, but it is not

I do not use them now, because

I am not obliged necessarily developed. It is rather astonishing to write at night. I found that in about 18 months that in Germany, where the character is an my eyes gave way. I went to an oculist, and he awkward one to read, the number of short-sighted said that it was due to my working by artificial children is so very much larger proportionately light ?-Yes. than it is in England.

2093. Probably you are aware that it is not 2087. They do their reading by daylight ?--- until after dark that the child begins to read a They may or they may not, but I mean to say book studiously, in the hope of sitting up ?-Yes. that the difference even between a complicated I would like to point that out. and a simple character appears to affect children's 2094. In the hope of not going to bed ?—That eyes, and anything that will tend to relieve the is true. strain is an advantage. The proposals of the 2095. Do you suppose that it would be stretching Bill will go in that direction. I do not say

that it too far to say that men who are accustomed to they will effect a radical cure.

working in the fields, who get up early in the 2088. My own experience is that my eyes were morning, want to go to bed earlier at night because hopelessly damaged long before there was any they are fagged and worn out ?-Yes. question of my working by artificial light ?-No 2096. It is only those of us who get up late who doubt that is so, but a good deal of harm is done want to sit up late ? — That is true. by the strain of reading in an artificial light.

Chairman.
Chairman.

2097. We are very grateful to you, Sir William, 2089. You think that the greater use of artificial for taking the trouble to come ? -I am glad if I light tends to accentuate and to aggravate any

have been able to be of any use. ocular infirmity ? - Yes, it tends to accentuate any infirmity that is there.

(The Witness withdrew.)

Mr. GILBERT BARTHOLAMEW called in; and Examined.

I am

Chairman.

Chairman--continued. 2098. You are Chairman and Managing Director say that that has been suggested to me when I have of Messrs. Bryant and May ?--Yes.

been arguing in favour of this Bill by friends of 2099. You are also Chairman and Managing mine who like to chaff one in commerce. Director of Match Manufacturers in London and bound to say that if I considered that aspect of the Liverpool ?—Yes.

question, I think that I should be quite as well off, 2100. What is the distinction between the two if not better, because daylight is quite good in conbodies ?-We have works in both places.

suming my particular article, which is matches. If 2101. You are a member of the Council of the men have to be out in the

open

air

more, or if they London Chamber of Commerce ?-Yes.

are able to be out in the open air more, I think they 2102. Would you favour the Committee with will consume more matches. Football matches general evidence as to your opinion about the Bill are excellent things for me, particularly if the wind both with regard to principle and with regard to is keen. methods ?—I am very much of opinion that it will 2105. What the Committee would especially like be a very real benefit to working people if they can to hear you upon as a practical man of business is get an hour and 20 minutes more daylight in the the relative advantages and attractions of the summer months, and I have failed to see any alternative methods of the alteration of time ?serious inconveniences in arranging that, provided I am bound to say that I have been a little mixed that it has to be done. I do not believe in an in my views as to that. I thought quite seriously optional change at all.

at the outset that the minimum of inconvenience 2103. You believe that it would conduce to would be reached if there could be but one change immense economy in the use of artificial illu in the spring and one in the autumn, but I think minants ?_It must do so.

I am coming round rather to the view that is 2104. And therefore it might conceivably reduce expressed in the Bill, that there will be a minimum the number of matches that you would be able to of inconvenience by making the changes shorter. sell ?-I am sorry you find it necessary to put that I do not sympathise a bit as a commercial man with to me, because that would affect me quite the idea that we are going to knock ourselves to seriously. I think I ought to be frank enough to pieces by making another change in time as

between

« 上一頁繼續 »