網頁圖片
PDF
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

532. I think you are the Lowndean Professor of Astronomy and Geometry at Cambridge, are you not ?––Yes, I am. 533. And you were formerly Astronomer Royal of Ireland ?–Yes. 534. You are Ex-President of the Royal Astronomical Society?–-Yes. 535. A Fellow of the Royal Society and a Director of the Cambridge Observatory ?–Yes. 536. Have you studied the scheme that has been prepared by Mr. Willett with regard to the saving of daylight 2—I have, yes. 537. Can you favour the Committee with any general expression of opinion in connection with the practicability of the scheme 2—Well, I think that it is a most admirable attempt to solve an admitted difficulty—the disability under which we labour, on account of our latitude, as compared with other countries in lower latitudes. The scheme of Mr. Willett would render a large additional amount of sunlight available during summer. So far as scientific questions are concerned, I do not ignore for a moment that the scheme would give rise to some difficulties. The dislocation of the time arrangements with regard to other countries would be considerable; at the same time I think they are only difficulties that might be overcome. I do not see any insuperable scientific objection to Mr. Willett's scheme, because astronomers are well accustomed to various kinds of time—a mean time, an apparent time, a sidereal time, and so on, and the addition of one more time would not add much more inconvenience or trouble, so far as scientific work is concerned. Nor do I think that it would be any great drawback, as has been suggested, with regard to the use of standard instruments because it is contemplated in the Bill—and most properly—that Greenwich time, which now is practically the time of the whole world, shall be consistently employed for scientific purposes and navigation. To my mind, there is, as I say, no scientific difficulty whatever that need stand in the way of the scheme. Of course there is the difficulty of want of harmony between time here and time on the other side of the Channel. That is, assuming that they did not follow and adopt it. 538. You mean St. George's Channel?—Yes, The question appears to me to be largely a practical one, and if the railway companies and large employers of labour would express their views on the proposed Bill—I should myself

Chairman—continued.

attach immense importance to what people of that class say—my position being, as I have already explained, that I do not see any scientific objection worthy of weight against the admitted benefits of the scheme, if those who are most concerned in the transit business of this country are disposed to acquiesce in it. Of course, there are multitudes of points that will have to be considered. I happen to be the scientific adviser to the Commissioners of Irish Lighthouses. For instance, lighthouses are arranged according to law. The law says that the lights must be lighted at sunset and put out again at sunrise, and on Islands and remote places the lighthouse-keepers have no means of regulating their clocks except by sundials. Well of course we are already acquainted with the equation of time. They have to apply it to their sundial, but now there will be a new variable equation of time which, assuming that Mr. Willett's proposal be passed, will have to be attended to, because the hours at which lighthouses are lighted is of very great importance. I have no doubt everyone in their own sphere will see many other difficulties, but I do not think, myself, that they are insuperable; and considering the enormous advantages that this Bill would offer, I do not think that the difficulties, so far as I have been able to estimate them, ought really to weigh against the immense advantages. 539. Have you any opinions to offer as regards the objections raised by Sir David Gill in his letter to the “Times” yesterday, in which he thinks that the partial and gradual alteration of the hour of the clock would constitute an intolerable grievance 2–It would constitute some trouble, I daresay, but I am not very particularly concerned as to whether the advance is made in the steps that Mr. Willett has proposed, or in a larger step, so long as it is made. That is, as I think, a question really for railway companies. I admit of course, what my friend Sir David Gill says– and I know no one in the world has taken more trouble, or has had a more intimate acquaintance with the matters than he has, but I cannot see that it would necessarily cause any very great amount of inconvenience. 540. Now in Washington, the interval between sunrise in midsummer and midwinter is about two hours and 40 minutes, is it not ?–That is so. 541. What is the difference in England owing to its greater latitude 2–It is upwards of four hours. 542. Four

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

542. Four hours and 20 minutes, is it not ?-Four hours and 20 minutes—yes,— between sunrise in June and sunrise in December. The only necessity for making that remark is something of this kind: We may naturally ask: Why is it that we have adopted these hours that we have practically found convenient for our daily life? Most of us breakfast, say, at half-past eight in this country, unless we are compelled by exigencies to adopt unusual modes of life. If we look at it in that way, we are at once struck with the fact that in America—Washington, or Philadelphia, or similar latitudes—you will find the people there will be breakfasting an hour earlier than we do habitually, and if you come to ask why that is, it is evident the reason is that we have adopted half-past eight, because that is the earliest hour at which all the year round it is daylight. We can maintain the same hours throughout the year without the necessity of using artificial light at both ends of the day. If you go to other latitudes, such as Philadelphia, or Washington, or New York, you will find the people fix their hours an hour earlier, simply because it is light at half-past seven all the year round. 543. In some parts of America 2–In all the parts you are likely to go to, because the latitude where we are now is in Labrador in America,— practically in Arctic places; but the chief cities in America are more like the latitude of Rome, and that makes all the difference, because it is always daylight at half-past seven every day in the year. 544. Half-past seven ?–Yes, in winter. In Washington the sun rises at 20 minutes past seven in the morning in the middle of December; here, of course, it is 10 minutes past eight—practically an hour later; then their hours are fixed in that way. 545. So that there are three different hours in the United States of America—West, Middle, and East 2—There are, but of course that is a matter of longitude, and if I may say so, that does not really concern us now, because it is the latitude question—that is the one that is at issue in this particular matter. 546. Do you mean it is automatic,-that it does not involve any constant interference—any arbitrary interference—as suggested by Mr.Willett? —No. 547. It is a fixed automatic change in the time ! —Yes, by the longitude of course. 548. Now I think the Committee would like to know whether you disapprove of a permanent alteration of the clock by one hour, as has been suggested by some of the witnesses 2–Certainly; that would be of no use whatever. 549. That would be of no use, you think?— That would be of no use whatever, for the simple reason that, suppose we altered it, by an hour as suggested, it would mean that what we now call half-past seven would be half-past eight. 550. Yes?—But we should not have daylight. Artificial light is necessary, but we practically object to use artificial light at both ends of the day. We do not want to have breakfast by artificial light, unless we are compelled to. 551. Your objection would be met, would it not, by making the alteration for only six months

Chairman–continued.

of the year 2–I do not see any insuperable difficulty in doing it that way, but, as I say, it is a practical question. If the railway companies could arrange their hours so as to comply, I do not see that there would be any particular objection. 552. As between the alteration of the hour and the piecemeal alteration suggested in the scheme, how does your preference lie Which would you prefer ?—Well, personally, I really do not think it makes much difference—I would prefer what would best suit the railway companies —but the alteration of the hour would have the advantage, certainly, that it would lessen the difficulties about Continental time, and so for that reason I should prefer it. 553. For the United Kingdom ?—Well, I do not see that it would make any great difference to us in the United Kingdom, except in the case of business people and employers of labour. I do not know what their views might be in cases where there are night shifts, and whether the railway companies would find it possible to push on all the trains suddenly in one hour of the day; I do not know. It might squeeze out certain trains, and it might make other difficulties; but it is a matter entirely for the traffic managers to say whether it could be done or not. 554. What is the difference between English time and Irish time 2–25 minutes. 555. Would the adoption of this proposal prejudicially affect the discrepancy which already exists 2–No, that is a question of longitude; that would be just the same. 556. The difference in latitude is, in your view, the main thing to be considered in this scheme 2–Yes. It is that which causes the disability. 557. May I take it that our latitude, roughly, is from about 55 degrees north all round the northern hemisphere, and travels through East Labrador, the North of Canada and Siberia 2–Yes. 558. And Norway?—Norway is rather more northerly. 559. May I take it that all those countries are mainly agricultural, so far as they have trades and occupations ?–Yes, I suppose that is so. Mr. Pearce. 560. The point I am thinking of is this: whether this proposal would affect other countries in the same latitude, nearly so much as it would affect Great Britain 7–Well, so far as it is an advantage to us, it would be an advantage to every country along those latitudes. 561. But more here ?–Oh, not more than here. It would be precisely the same on similar latitudes all round the world. 562. I was thinking of the occupations of the people of those countries ?—Yes. 563. Do they not already govern themselves very much by sunrise ?—I suppose they do; but I am afraid that is going into questions that I would not be competent to answer. 564. There is a vast population here of manufacturing people 2–Yes.

565. And they are a much larger *: O

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

of the population than in any other latitude 7–There is no doubt about that. 566. Therefore, having regard to our manufacturing conditions, and our climatic conditions, it affects Great Britain more than any other country—this question ?—Yes, no doubt it does. 567. The climate of Great Britain, having regard to its northern latitude, is exceptionally mild 2–It certainly is so; it is the mildest place round the whole parallel. 568. In answer to Sir Edward Sassoon, you said that you had in your mind the St. George's Channel with reference to some difficulty ?–Yes. 569. But had you not also in your mind the channel between us and the Continent ?--Oh, certainly—yes. 570. Now as regards lighthouses, with which you are concerned; the lighthouses are worked by sunrise and sunset 7–They are lighted at sunset and extinguished at sunrise. 571. Therefore the alteration of the clock would not affect them at all ?–No, it would not, except that there are rules issued to lighthouse keepers to light at certain times, and the times are given by their clocks, of course, and those times are based on sunrise and sunset. 572. Those times are intended to represent sunrise and sunset 2—-Yes. 573. You have given us the difference of time between Washington and London, in point of summer variation, as 4 hours 20 minutes in England, and 2 hours 40 minutes in the latitude of Washington ?—That is so. 574. For our purpose we must double that, must not we, as representing the extent of daylight—that is to say, here we have eight hours or rather more extra daylight in summer ?—Yes. 575. And in Washington they have only four or five hours; is that so ?—What I was speaking of was the range at Washington between sunrise in midwinter and sunrise in midsummer. The difference between the amount of daylight of a midsummer's day in London and a midsummer's day in Washington is about two hours only. 576. Yes, that may be so; but I am speaking now of the difference between winter and summer daylight in our country?--Oh, yes. 577. Now here the difference is unquestionably, I think, eight hours (or rather more) longer daylight in summer ?–Yes. 578. Longer than in Washington ?—I will just see in one moment. 579. I think it is about double 7–It would be about double. 580. About four hours, or something like that ? —Yes. 581. Between four and five hours ?–Yes, about that. 582. What is the latitude of Washington ? —39° North latitude. 583. It may be convenient to get it on our notes ?—I take it it would be about that. 584. The variation in daylight on the Equator is very small throughout the year, is it not ?– Practically nothing. The sun rises at six and sets at six. 585. But from the Equator the difference gradually increases northward or southward up

similar

Mr. Pearce—continued.

to the Pole 3–Yes, of course, up to the Arctic regions. 586. Take the Arctic circle as the limit of our inquiry. We need not go beyond that. That is six to six, is it not ?—We need not go beyond the Arctic circle. 587. There is a difference even in these Islands of 17 hours daylight in Scotland, which would be affected by this Bill ?–Yes. 588. As compared with the winter daylight 2– Yes. 589. Which is only seven hours ?—Yes. 590. Therefore, the whole conditions of these Islands and the mild climate and of its geographical situation and latitude make a Bill of this kind and the using of summer daylight practically desirable with reference to the whole of the rest of the world. Is that so—except, perhaps, France 2—Well, of course, the adoption of it would give the latitudes resembling ours the same convenience that it gives to us. 591. Now I will take you to another point upon it. The hours of daylight that have been referred to a good deal in this controversy are purely longitudinal arrangements 2–Certainly. 592. They have nothing to do with the question of latitude at all ?—Nothing whatever, no. 593. Do you know what the international agreement is which fixed them ?—It has been settled for a long time—gradually one country has fallen in with another; it has arisen, of course, from the British Admiralty primarily fixing the meridian at Greenwich; then other nations have found it convenient to adopt the Greenwich meridian for purposes of navigation. 594. You know that the Greenwich mean time is fixed by Act of Parliament in this country?— Yes. - 595. By the Act of 1880?—I suppose so. 596. The very Act which made the Dublin mean time the standard time for Ireland 2– Yes. 597. A difference of five-and-twenty minutes; is that so 2–Yes. 598. Now I suppose you would feel, as a scientific man, that it would be an extremely unsatisfactory thing to abandon the Greenwich meridian 2–Oh, yes, that would be inconceivable. 599. It would be inconceivable 2–It would be inconceivable. 600. One of the suggestions that have been made by some of our witnesses, who would not have the scientific rank that you have in the matter, is that we should use mid-European time here in England. In your opinion, would that be an abandonment of the Greenwich meridian 2– I could not think of that for a moment; it would, of course, be an abandonment of the Greenwich meridian ; I could not entertain that for a moment. 601. No, you could not entertain that for a moment. Then, if that is so, we are tied down to a local variation to suit our latitude; that is to say, we may make an alteration with our clocks in the summer time for our own convenience without interfering with the Greenwich meridian, or any of the international arrangements that affect it 2—Well, I think we do interfere with them; but my point is that the amount of interference

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

ference involved would not be weighty in comparison with the advantages gained. 602. It would be a purely local matter, would it not ?—I think it would. I do not see why it should be more than a local matter. 603. Confined to these Islands 2—Yes, I should have thought so. 604. Have you thought about the exact terms of the Bill—as to the amount of daylight that we should secure ?–Yes. 605. I am only anxious to get this sort of thing from you?—Yes, that is right. 606. Have you seen this diagram. I want to trouble you with it for a moment (handing same to the Witness). Now, having that in your hand, do you know that the Bill itself proposes to make a short hour in the Sundays in April 2–Yes, four Sundays–40 minutes. 607. And it proposes to make a long hour in four Sundays in September ?–It does—yes. 608. Looking at that diagram, is the effect of the Bill to increase the use of summer daylight to the amount shown on that red patch. Is that roughly right 2–Yes, it is. 609. Then you see the red line to your right 2– Yes. 610. That shows the variations made in the hours of leaving off work by the Bill ?–It does, yes. 611. In your opinion, as regards the exact mode proposed in the Bill—whether it is a 20 minutes' variation or any other—is that mode of doing it (legislatively, you know) a proper mode 2 Can you conceive of any other mode 2—Well, there is the mode of advancing it by an hour. 612. Yes. I am not thinking of that ?–Of the actual 20 minutes ? 613. I am thinking of the actual form of the clause. The actual form of the clause is that there should be a short hour in one month and a long hour in another month ?–Yes. 614. Now, whether you make that one hour by itself or an hour-and-a-half or an hour and 20 minutes in the aggregate, in the form of the clause in the Bill, is that suitable, according to your view 2–Yes, I think it is. 615. To accomplish the particular purpose ?– To accomplish the particular purpose gradually. 616. Greenwich time, as we say, must not be interfered with—Greenwich mean time—the meridian *—The standard mean time at Greenwich is, of course, not to be interfered with. 617. Does not a clause of the Bill provide that “Greenwich time, as used for the purposes of Astronomy and Navigation, shall not be affected by this Act.” 2–I understand that, of course. 618. Would it be convenient to put in, for the purposes of international agreement, “The use of the meridian,” or some such amendment as that ?—I think it would be sufficient as it stands. 619. You have noticed that the Bill is to apply *::"—" see no inconvenience in that ?— -NO. * * , Sir Walter Nugent. 620. I think you said, with regard to making a permanent change of one hour, that you would InOt #" of that ?—I think the effect of

Sir Walter Nugent—continued.

making a permanent change of one hour would not realise at all what is desired, because the tendency of everybody then would be to change the hours of all their engagements and thus leave matters where they are. 621. Do not you think the fact of our not taking advantage of the daylight in summer at present is purely a matter of habit and custom, and if we were to make a permanency, adapted to summer, do not you think the people would arrange in winter so as to carry on their business to the best of their convenience 2—I do not think that that could be recommended. That is my view of it. People would gradually alter their hours, and they would not have the advantage of retaining the fixed hours which is one of the great objects and advantages of the Bill. 622. You see the great objection to the change is the constant change of the clock—the change first in the spring and then the change in the autumn 2–Yes. 623. If it was one permanent change, that, would it not, remove a great many objections? If it is purely a matter of custom and habit, if that habit was once changed, then in all probability people would adapt themselves to it. You would not take that view 2–No, I am afraid I do not agree to that. 624. You think they would be more likely to accept the idea of the dual change, the change in the spring and the change in the autumn 2– I think so. 625. And you think that would be more advantageous !—I do. I have no doubt about it.

Mr. Richards.

626. Do you think that this matter then is merely a matter for railway directors and manufacturers ?—I do, I think it is very largely for them. 627. And although you have given the reason why the breakfast hour is taken at half-past eight, owing to the fact that it is customary to do it in the winter months, you would not be surprised, I suppose, to learn that in some parts of the country the practice is made of starting work in the factories at 6.30 in the morning in the summer, whereas they start at eight in the winter? —Yes. 628. And during the winter months, when the factories start at eight, the people have breakfast before they go to work 3–Yes. 629. That is the manufacturing standpoint, which affects manufacturers very largely, because they want as many breaks in the day's work as possible; it means money to them; as a consequence they do not care about meals on the factory premises 2–Yes. 630. In the winter months they start at eight o’clock 2–Yes. 631. That means that the operatives would have breakfast at 7.30 ?–Yes. 632. Then in April they jump to an hour and a half earlier—they go to work at 6.30—I do not know whether they put the clock back or what they do with it, but they carry out the custom ? —Yes. 633. Then they do not breakfast until eight, 7 therefore 19 May, 1908.]

Mr. Richards—continued.

therefore although they get up an hour and a half earlier in the summer, they breakfast one hour later ?–Yes. 634. I only put that question forward to ask you whether you do not think that it is custom very largely which brings about this great variation at the present moment 2–Well, I suppose it does to some extent. I have been in America several times, and so far as I know, the people living on the Equator where the sun rises at six, and sets at six, habitually get up and breakfast soon after six all the year round, and judging from that and a few other places, I am tempted to think it is the general view that people generally (I am not speaking now of those working unusual hours, but ordinary people) regulate their hours so that they shall have a constant hour for getting up and beginning their day's work, but what that constant hour is, depends upon the fact that they do not want to use artificial light in winter at the beginning of the day. 635. And you see no inconvenience in that ? — I do not. Astronomically I see great inconveniences, but I do not see that they weigh against the advantages.

Mr. Holt.

636. It is quite clear that the object of this Bill is to make people get up earlier in the summer and to go to bed earlier. That is the object 2– Yes, it is. 637. Why should not they do it of their own accord 2–Well, I do not know. I think they would do it if they felt that everybody else was going to do it too. I suppose one difficulty about getting up early now is that business people do not find that the banks are open. They open at statutory hours, and the railway hours are arranged according to that; but if all occupations and interests were to be similarly affected, I think the change could be made quite naturally. 638. For instance—suppose you take any trade —any large trade you like to mention—for instance a trade like (we will say) The Stock Exchange; now there is nothing to prevent the Stock Exchange (they have regular hours) by a resolution of their own fixing the business hours an hour earlier in the summer than in the winter. There is nothing to prevent that, is there ?—I do not suppose there is, but if the bank opposite had not done the same they certainly would not find it convenient to do it. 639. Quite so. But after all, I suppose there would be nothing impossible in the bank opening earlier ?—I suppose not. It would want an Act of Parliament, perhaps, but I really do not know. 640. If that could be done that would be a much simpler and cleaner way of obtaining the desired object than the alteration of the clock, would it not ?—There is no doubt it would, if it could be done. 641. If it could be done 7–If it could be done, and if the railways would follow suit also. 642. You do not think that the existing hours have been gradually adopted because on the whole they are the most convenient to the majority

[ocr errors][merged small]

Mr. Holt—continued.

of people 3—Well, that is rather a difficult question to answer. They are the most convenient to the majority of the people in our latitudes. If you determine to keep constant hours or keep your hours constantly fixed then they are the most convenient, but the advantage of the proposed modifications would be that, while you would still keep your constant hours, you would have the advantage of more daylight. 643. Perhaps; but do not you think that there is such a thing as having too much daylight ! —Well, you know, that is a queer thing to ask an astronomer. You know daylight is a mistake altogether from his point of view. 644. But apart from your special industry, which we quite agree is seriously injured by daylight, do not you think that where people have a very long period of daylight, such as you get in the extreme North of Europe—such as Spitzbergen or wherever the place is—people find they have too much of it?—I do not think so. I know when I have been in Norway I have greatly enjoyed the long daylight. 645. You think you cannot have too much of it, apart from astronomy?–Oh, no. 646. You were telling us just now that on the Equator people get up at about daylight 4– Yes, so I understand. 647. Well that is a matter of experience, but I think in those districts it is also usual for most people to sleep in the middle of the day, is it not ? —I daresay it is. It is complicated, of course, by the question of heat. 648. The question of heat complicates it very much 2–Yes. 649. My experience of life on the Equator— which was not very long, about three months— is that the people do not go to bed there any earlier than they do here; they have a siesta in the middle of the day, and you get considerably less daylight in places where you get up at six o'clock in the morning than you do here ?–I merely mentioned the question of the Equator to illustrate my point that our hours are regulated mainly by arranging so that all the year round we should be able to get up at the same hour, but always in daylight; we push that hour as far back as we consistently can. We cannot push it earlier than half-past eight here, but it can be made six o'clock on the Equator. 650. You think the idea of altering our time by making it an hour earlier all the year round would be ridiculous 2—I think it perfectly futile. It does not meet the point at all. 651. The only thing that appears to you at all desirable is to obtain an earlier hour of rising in the summer than in the winter ?–That is the point. 652. That is the point to be attained ?– That is the point to be attained. 653. Would you think it preferable to obtain that by an alteration of the clock or to obtain it by some other method, such as altering bank hours?—Well, that is more a question for legislators as to what can most effectually bring all these interests into conformity. The legislature, I presume, can alter bank hours, and certain other hours are also fixed by law, but,

« 上一頁繼續 »