網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

2 June, 1908.]

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.

Mr. Richards-continued.

Mr. HUBBARD.

[blocks in formation]

1984. I think that they improve the character of the men. Do you think that another advantage would be gained? Do you think, with regard to young men who are interested in cricket in the summer time-I will not say football in the summer time, but cricket-that it would be possible for them after working hours to play a match? Yes, I think so.

1985. They have not the facility now for doing so after working hours, except on Saturdays? -No.

1986. Operatives can only play on Saturday

afternoons?—Yes.

[blocks in formation]

1989. After the cross-examination do you see any reason to alter your opinion as to the desirability of making a permanent alteration in the time?—I think that a permanent alteration would be beneficial.

1990. In spite of the fact that during the greater part of the year more artificial light would have to be used. If you had to begin work at 6 o'clock during the winter months instead of at 7, would not that entail the further use of artificial light ?-It would, but I do not take that to be the meaning of the Bill.

1991. The Bill says that the alteration is only to be for six months of the year-from April to September ?—Yes, that is so; but, as far as we are concerned, we should not commence at those hours in the winter.

1992. You would not commence ?-No. We commence at 8 o'clock all the year round, and I take it that the Bill would only be dealing with the summer months. That is how I take it. Is not that so?

Mr. Pearce.

1993. Yes?-Shall I read it ?

Chairman.

1994. The Bill merely says that certain alterations shall be made during the months specified. That does not compel anybody to

start work earlier or to leave off earlier or to do anything except what suits him?-I quite understand that.

1995. Is it your suggestion that if a permanent alteration were made in the time the great working organisations would have two different hours of M

Chairman-continued.

99

[Continued.

starting work-one during the daylight months and one during the winter months?-I think that it would be a great advantage if you could have one uniform hour of starting.

1996. That is perfectly true, but I want to get this from you: supposing we had this permanent alteration of one hour, would the labour people have one hour for beginning work during the summer months and during the late autumn and winter months another hour for beginning work? I think it probable, because it would be a waste of light in the winter months.

1997. Would these alterations make it easier to have some uniform time for a midday mea for working-men ?—I think so.

1998. More than obtains at present ?—Yes; and that would be a great benefit gained no doubt. Take Leicester, for instance. The building trades have their midday meal at 12 o'clock, and other industries have their midday meal at one o'clock; the children come home from school at 12 o'clock, and I feel sorry for the women who have to cater for three or four sets of meals in one day.

1999. You think that that is a very desirable object to aim at ?-I think that it is a very desirable object to aim at: I emphasise that fact.

2000. Now, with regard to greater leisure, Mr. Holt suggested that no such thing would be obtained if you went to bed an hour earlier. May I say that the people would have greater leisure for the enjoyment of outdoor life and all the amenities connected with it?-Yes, which would be an advantage.

2001. Do you think that it is likely to have any influence on the closing hours of publichouses?—I have scarcely looked at it from that point of view.

2002. You have not considered that ?—I have not done so.

2003. You have nothing to say with regard to that ?—I have no data with regard to that.

Mr. Pearce.

and that is with regard to what you mean by 2004. I should like to make one point clear, permanent. The proposals are to make a change in the summer time ?-Yes, I understand that.

2005. And to revert to the winter practice in September ?-Yes.

2006. Is that what you are in favour of ?—I am in favour of an hour all the year round-one change.

2007. What value is there in calling 8 o'clock 7 o'clock all the year round? Of what use is that?—I do not know that there is any intrinsic value in it.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

2 June, 1908.]

Sir WILLIAM RAMSAY, K.C.B.

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

2010. You are a Professor of Chemistry?-I am-at University College.

2011. You are interested in all expedients for the saving of time and labour ?—I am.

2012. And generally for the greater convenience of mankind ?-Quite so.

2013. Have you fully considered the bearings of the Bill ?--Yes, ever since it was first suggested. 2014. What are your views as regards the method of procedure which it contemplates adopting. I think it is eminently rational. I believe that there is some question as to whether it would be advisable to make a sudden alteration of one hour and 20 minutes, or to divide it into four portions of 20 minutes. I am very much in favour of the last proposal. As a traveller, one is always confronted with the loss of an hour. It is a serious thing. You either are tempted to spend an hour too much in bed, or to grumble because you get an hour too little sleep; but I do not think anyone would notice four alterations of 20 minutes, and I think that, if it were possible to begin slowly at first and for the first few years not make the whole alteration, at all events, it would be a scientific way of trying it to see whether people would submit to such an alteration, and if necessary the amount of time could be increased to the hour and 20 minutes proposed.

2015. But would not that very tentative and experimental alteration considerably emasculate the apparent advantages to the public of the Bill? People would say, "We are 10 minutes earlier." What is the good of that?-I should not begin with 10 minutes. Supposing that you began with two periods of 20 minutes, it would make some difference. However, I do not press the point. I think that it might be as well to begin with the full quantity of time.

2916. You think that the method suggested by the Bill is perfectly practicable ?—I think that it is perfectly practicable.

2017. Perfectly practicable and feasible, and that legislative machinery might perfectly justifiably be resorted to ?-Yes, I think so. I should like also to point out that from the scientific point of view there can be no possible objection. It does not interfere with any astronomical reckoning of time.

2018. Nor with navigation ?—Nor with navigation; in fact chronometers will run in the old fashion. Every instrument required to keep accurate time will go as before.

2019. Have the astronomers of the Science Guild considered the Bill ?-Yes, and the feeling of the Science Guild, I am sorry to say, is that any tampering with time is a mistake. We discussed the point, but I could not convince them. I dare say that you will hear their evidence that it is a great mistake to tamper with time. 2020. How is the Guild composed? Is it composed mainly of astronomical people ?-No. the Chairman, Sir Norman Lockyer, happens to be an astronomer.

2021. The Guild is mainly composed of scientific people?-Yes, almost entirely scientific people, or people who take an interest in science.

2022. Have they practically unanimously decided to oppose the Bill?-No. On the contrary

Chairman-continued.

[Continued.

there are some employers of labour who are in favour of the Bill. Sir William Mather, a large engineer, is one of the members, and he is very strongly in favour of the Bill. We were by no means unanimous, but there is no use in pushing an argument which is not approved of by the whole Guild. We find it generally politic when we disagree upon certain matters, not to push them. Our object is to push those things which are useful, and upon which the whole Science Guild is agreed.

2023. The Guild do not consider the principle of the Bill as of sufficient importance to accentuate any cleavage of opinion amongst the members ?No. They had pretty largely to reckon with the opinion of Sir Norman Lockyer, who is very strongly against any alteration of time, and Sir David Gill, the late Astronomer at the Cape, takes the same view. He thinks that it would be a mistake to alter the time, because of the possibility of introducing confusion in reckoning, I fancy. That is all.

2024. And yet Sir David Gill happened to be at the Cape when an alteration was made in the time?—Yes.

2025. I frankly admit that it was a permanent alteration ?-It was a permanent alteration. 2026. In which respect it differed from the provision of the Bill?—Yes.

2027. The Guild did not go into the alternative problem of having some sort of legislative sanction for the earlier opening of the day's work?-The suggestion was made that that ought to happen, but it is obviously impracticable. You cannot insist upon work being commenced at any particular hour by Act of Parliament, and the matter was allowed to drop.

2028. And yet, in the Factory Acts, there is sumptuary legislation of that description ?-I do not think that it would meet the views of the supporters of the Bill that such sumptuary legislation should be pushed. A Committee was appointed, and it met once, and after discussion, there was obviously so much difference of opinion, that the matter was dropped.

2029. And they do not contemplate resuming it? I think not.

2030. Evidently not. You are here to-day merely speaking for yourself?—I am merely speaking for myself.

2031. Will you make any general observations on the bearings of the Bill?-With regard to the student question, I think that it ought to be noticed that there are very large numbers of students and school children in the country. I come into contact with large bodies of students who spend their Saturday afternoons in playing games for the most part. I think that it is obvious that if they could get more light for their games it would be a great advantage. Then there is another point with regard to which I do not know whether it has been seriously considered, and that is the question of eyesight. Has that been thought of? There is no question that there is very much less danger to the eyes if daylight be used, than there is if artificial light be used.

2032. I think that that is generally admitted? -The lengthening of the hours of daylight would

do

2 June, 1908.]

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.

Chairman-continued.

Sir WILLIAM RAMSAY, K.C.B.

do a good deal to relieve the strain on children's eyes, and it certainly would have some effect.

2033. From the scientific point of view, you yourself do not see any valid or insurmountable objection to some alteration being made in the time?—I can see absolutely none.

2034. Apart from the question of method?Yes, I can see absolutely none.

2035. You would most decidedly be in favour of the gradual alteration forecasted in the Bill, rather than a permanent alteration over the whole year?--Yes, and I think the suggestion to alter the time at two o'clock on Sunday morning is a very reasonable one, provided that the railway companies can arrange it.

2036. Do you say anything as to an alternative suggestion of an hour's alteration for certain daylight months of the year?-You mean a complete hour?

2037. A complete hour, or an hour and 20 minutes; the difference being as between a permanent alteration of one hour and a partial alteration extending over, say, five and a half months?—I think that the partial alteration is better.

2038. A permanent alteration would, in your opinion, hardly be workable. It would hardly give the advantages?-I do not think it would give the advantages. Has it been considered that in the northern parts of Scotland, for example, that would involve rising in the dark for a certain period during the month of April? I think that it does involve that. A working-man, for instance, who has to be at his business at six o'clock, I presume, rises about five, and if the time were altered he would have to rise at twenty to four.

2039. Of course, that only goes back to saying that the Bill is not compulsory in any way?Exactly.

2040. It merely gives people opportunities of starting work earlier if the surrounding conditions are satisfactory, and propitious to such a course being adopted?-Yes, that is so.

2041. And, naturally, as between the Lowlands and Highlands of Scotland, even if the Bill passed in its present shape, there would be certain industries that would not start any earlier in April ?—No.

2042. Not until the second fortnight in May, because the sun rises later, and consequently, in April, and until the middle of May, there would be no advantage in beginning work very much earlier, whereas in the Lowlands they might conceivably be perfectly in a position to take full advantage of the provisions of the Bill?That appears to be the case. It may interest the Committee to know that I have lived through such a state of affairs in the Highlands, where an eccentric friend of mine put his clocks two hours on in order that the whole family should appear sufficiently early. It is a question of servants. Unless they are deceived in that way, they will not have the breakfast ready. They go according to the clock, and they have no objection to rising at 6 o'clock, if it is called eight.

Mr. Holt.

2043. I do not quite understand what you consider would be the gain in adopting this Bill.

Mr. Holt-continued.

101

[Continued.

Is it entirely a question of play-time for children? -And gain of light for working-men.

2044. Increased light for working-men ?Increased light for working-men, and for all the professions. In all the employments in which light is an advantage, practically everyone will save eyesight in the long run.

2045. I do not quite understand why it is that you think this could not be done by voluntarily adopting earlier hours in the summer months?-It could perfectly well be done, but no one would do it. It is an absolute impossibility to get people to adopt earlier hours.

2046. You thought that your friend who got his household to rise earlier by the method which you described was eccentric ?-He lived about 10 miles from everybody. The alteration interfered with nobody.

2047. But do you really suggest that he could not have obtained the same results by requesting his household to rise at 6 o'clock ?—I do not think that he could. I really think that the servants would have struck.

2048. I confess that I have never found it so myself, when I have wanted to do it?-As a regular matter? It is perfectly easy to get breakfast at 6 o'clock once in a way, but to breakfast regularly at 6 o'clock, I think, would involve dismissing one's domestics and finding others.

2049. I am happy to say that I have never wanted breakfast at 6 o'clock ?-Have you not? Chairman.

2050. You would bring about a miniature strike, I suppose ?-I think that you would. It would be extremely difficult.

[blocks in formation]

2052. You think that they would not discover that they were being deceived, or that if they found that they were, they would not mind?— They would not mind if everyone was put into the same position. There would be no difficulty.

2053. Have you considered the position of people I do not know whether you have-who have commercial relations, or other relations all over the world, and who have to communicate by cable with other places? Might it not be very inconvenient to them to find that the relative time in this country and in other countries, such as the United States of America, was not always the same ?-I do not think it would. It must be remembered that within a very narrow borderline-I suppose an absolute line on the surface of the globe-time alters one hour.

difference in time between, say, London and New 2054. Quite so. I want to point out that the York, or London and Sydney, or any place that you like to think of, that is now always the same, would not be always the same if this Bill were adopted ?—That would be a distinct disadvantage, and the question ought to be weighed whether

that

2 June, 1908.]

Sir WILLIAM RAMSAY, K.C.B.

Mr. Holt-continued. that disadvantage is compensated by the corresponding advantage to be gained for our own population.

2055. It is a distinct disadvantage, is it not, that the relations of time between this and other countries should be liable to fluctuate ?-It means that people are obliged to think that is alland the less thought the better.

2056. I gather that you do not think that the servants would be able to think enough to find that they had been deceived?--I do not think they would.

Mr. Pearce.

2057. It is agreed that there is that difficulty with regard to the time of other countries ?There is that difficulty.

2058. Which Mr. Holt has pointed out Certainly.

2059. The sidereal day is the most invariable time, is it not ?—Yes.

2060. When our friend Sir Norman Lockyer talks of tampering with the time, do you see, or does he see, any way of tampering with the length of the sidereal day?-It is absolutely impossible.

2061. So far, then, we cannot do it ?—No, we I cannot do it.

2062. The sidereal day as reckoned in our measurements is 23 hours, 59 minutes and 4 seconds ?-Yes, I believe so.

2063. There is a difference of 56 seconds ?Yes, I think it is 56 seconds.

2064. How has it happened that the sidereal day, which is the most invariable, has not been divided into 24 hours ?-Because we prefer to go by the sun, rather than by the stars.

2065. It is not a question of sun, is it? The sun time varies far more than that ?—That is true, from day to day; but from year to year, no. I mean, we get the solstices occurring at the same times every year. We average it out. It is merely a matter of popular convenience.

2066. It is a mean-an average day?—Yes. 2067. It is never exactly consistent with anything natural ?-Never.

2068. It is a convenient arbitrary arrangement for chronometers and matters of longitude, and so on ?-Yes.

2069. The variation being met by allowing for what is called the equation of time ? - Yes, but no astronomer would ever dream of using any

time but sidereal time.

2070. He uses sidereal time because it is so invariable ? - Because it is so invariable.

2071. The object of the Bill is not astronomical. The object contemplated in the Bill is to make use of daylight ?-Yes.

2072. And as an expedient for that, there being no magic in clocks, we are proposing to indicate time in the summer months differently from the indication in the winter months ?-Yes, that is so.

2073. I understand that you entirely agree with it?-I entirely agree with it. There is really very little inconvenience, for example, in crossing to Ireland, where there is 20 minutes difference. In a moment you have realised it.

Mr. Pearce-continued.

[Continued.

2074. Have you thought out the method of making the change ?-I think that the method suggested in the Bill is the best that you could have or that could be devised.

2075. I am speaking now of the practical way with regard to the alteration of clocks. Have you thought about that ?-I presume that the standard timekeepers in the various towns and villages, the church clocks and so on, would be altered.

2076. We had an authority on clocks here the other day who preferred the 20 minutes' alteration, because when you wanted to shorten the hour you would drop the heavy minute hand in the public clock from 10 past the hour to half-past the hour by gravity?—Yes.

2077. He recommended that the change of shortening the hour by 20 minutes and lengthening the hour should be done by dropping the hand from 10 minutes to the hour back to the half hour by gravity ?—Yes.

2078. And he explained to us that that was better than other changes, which could not be so conveniently made on the clocks. Do you agree with that?-I really have no knowledge of the mechanism of clocks.

2079. You cannot throw any light upon that ?— No, I cannot throw any light upon that.

Chairman.

2080. We may take it from you, Sir William, that you are distinctly in favour of the 20 minutes' alteration as against the alteration of an hour all at once?-Yes, I am.

2081. You consider that the objections that have generally been raised to the scheme are trivial ?-Yes.

I

2082. And ill-considered ?-I think they are. very strongly support anything that makes for public convenience. We submit to an immense number of little things-I could give half-a-dozen instances, but it is not worth while-where we are subject to inconvenience simply because we will not put the things right. Take for example one pound notes in Scotland and Ireland. Why does one have to pay sixpence on cashing them in England? We have not a uniform monetary system for the country. Then why keep our ridiculous system of weights and measures, where one has to remember all sorts of things, which would be quite unnecessary if our system was not what it is. There are dozens of such cases, and anything that would tend to simplify our lives in that way and to give us less to think about would be of very great advantage.

2083. The scheme, however arbitrary and capricious it may seem at first sight, is really a very workable and very feasible plan, you think?— It appears to me to be a very workable plan indeed.

2084. You think that it will conduce to economy in a great many households and in a large number of industries?—Yes, and I think that is very important. It will also tend to preserve the eyes. A very large number of school children suffer from defective sight, and no doubt anything that you can do to lessen the strain on the eyes will diminish that number. Giving greater daylight for work will certainly tend in that direction.

[blocks in formation]

It may not do it, but it will tend in that direction. 2085. You are also of opinion that the advantages of the Bill could not be secured otherwise than by legislation ?-I am quite certain of that. People will not agree to anything unless they are made to do it.

Mr. Holt.

2086. Do you not think that most of the children who have defective eyesight get it before they commence using their eyes by artificial light?. Probably the tendency is there, but it is not necessarily developed. It is rather astonishing that in Germany, where the character is an awkward one to read, the number of short-sighted children is so very much larger proportionately than it is in England.

2087. They do their reading by daylight? They may or they may not, but I mean to say that the difference even between a complicated and a simple character appears to affect children's eyes, and anything that will tend to relieve the strain is an advantage. The proposals of the Bill will go in that direction. I do not say that they will effect a radical cure.

2088. My own experience is that my eyes were hopelessly damaged long before there was any question of my working by artificial light ?—No doubt that is so, but a good deal of harm is done. by the strain of reading in an artificial light.

Chairman.

2089. You think that the greater use of artificial light tends to accentuate and to aggravate any ocular infirmity ?-Yes, it tends to accentuate any infirmity that is there.

Mr. Holt.

2090. No doubt that is so ?-Yes.

Mr. Richards.

2091. I suppose you are aware that this would probably affect 12,000,000 of young people under the age of 20 years ?-Yes, something like that.

2092. I may speak for myself, as Mr. Holt has given a reference to himself. I never had to set up glasses until I was thrown into an occupation where I had to do a lot of work by artificial light. I do not use them now, because I am not obliged to write at night. I found that in about 18 months my eyes gave way. I went to an oculist, and he said that it was due to my working by artificial light? Yes.

2093. Probably you are aware that it is not until after dark that the child begins to read a book studiously, in the hope of sitting up ?—Yes. I would like to point that out.

2094. In the hope of not going to bed ?-That is true.

2095. Do you suppose that it would be stretching it too far to say that men who are accustomed to working in the fields, who get up early in the morning, want to go to bed earlier at night because they are fagged and worn out ?—Yes.

2096. It is only those of us who get up late who want to sit up late ?-That is true.

Chairman.

2097. We are very grateful to you, Sir William, for taking the trouble to come ?--I am glad if İ have been able to be of any use.

(The Witness withdrew.)

Mr. GILBERT BARTHOLAMEW called in; and Examined.

Chairman.

[merged small][ocr errors]

2100. What is the distinction between the two bodies ?-We have works in both places.

2101. You are a member of the Council of the London Chamber of Commerce ?-Yes.

2102. Would you favour the Committee with general evidence as to your opinion about the Bill both with regard to principle and with regard to methods?—I am very much of opinion that it will be a very real benefit to working people if they can get an hour and 20 minutes more daylight in the summer months, and I have failed to see any serious inconveniences in arranging that, provided that it has to be done. I do not believe in an optional change at all.

2103. You believe that it would conduce to immense economy in the use of artificial illuminants? It must do so.

2104. And therefore it might conceivably reduce the number of matches that you would be able to sell?—I am sorry you find it necessary to put that to me, because that would affect me quite seriously. I think I ought to be frank enough to

Chairman--continued.

I am

say that that has been suggested to me when I have been arguing in favour of this Bill by friends of mine who like to chaff one in commerce. bound to say that if I considered that aspect of the question, I think that I should be quite as well off, if not better, because daylight is quite good in consuming my particular article, which is matches. If men have to be out in the open air more, or if they are able to be out in the open air more, I think they will consume more matches. Football matches are excellent things for me, particularly if the wind is keen.

2105. What the Committee would especially like to hear you upon as a practical man of business is the relative advantages and attractions of the alternative methods of the alteration of time?— I am bound to say that I have been a little mixed in my views as to that. I thought quite seriously at the outset that the minimum of inconvenience would be reached if there could be but one change in the spring and one in the autumn, but I think I am coming round rather to the view that is expressed in the Bill, that there will be a minimum of inconvenience by making the changes shorter. I do not sympathise a bit as a commercial man with the idea that we are going to knock ourselves to pieces by making another change in time as

between

« 上一頁繼續 »