1371. Would not that have the effect of giving up the use of Greenwich mean time in Great Britain ?—Yes, except in Greenwich. Greenwich would of course always keep Greenwich mean time.

1372. Greenwich mean time for what pnrposs? -Greenwich mean time is your standard, but you would be 45 minutes wrong in London, and in Plymouth you would be 63 minutes wrong.

1373. What is the use of Greenwich mean time? -As a correction for all ships-all ships and all longitudes are calculated from Greenwich mean time.

1374. It is for navigation purposes?-All astronomical observations are calculated according to Greenwich mean time, and consequently Greenwich is the source of time to a certain extent. 1374A. I agree it is the starting point?-It is the starting point.

1375. I quite agree to that?-Therefore you could not alter Greenwich-at least you could, of course, alter it, but you would have to make your calculation on the new basis.

1376. Does it not strike you as a strange proposition that Greenwich mean time should. be used all over the ocean-all over the world, but not in Great Britain ?—No.

1377. That is your proposal?-I do not know the practical effect of that; I have not thought

of it.

1378. Surely having "hour zones" fixed all around the world, and each "hour zone" being Greenwich mean time (the starting point) on your suggestion the only place where the starting point was not observed, would be in Great Britain? -Yes.

1379. Surely that is not a proposition you would recommend to us?-No.

1380. You know the Bill preserves the use of Greenwich mean time for all navigation purposes? -Yes, that in any case I take it is a sine qua non would have to be preserved.

1381. Certainly, and it is expressly mentioned ? -It would be necessary for navigation purposes. I might say that theoretically I entirely agree with Mr. Willett.

1382. Theoretically?-Theoretically I quite agree with Mr. Willett that the best change to be made for the benefit of employees and everyone generally or the benefit of the public in Great Britain-would be to change it as you propose; but I think the obstacles are too great.

1383. You have really anticipated my next question. I think I might leave it at that-that you agree with the principle of the Bill-to secure the better use of daylight in summer?-Yes. I thought you rather seemed to think that I did not like the principle of the thing.

1384. No, I understood; it is a question of method?--Yes.

1385. Summer is only one of the four quarters, which means that it represents about four or five months, does it not?-Yes.

1386. Your plan would be that all the other months should be altered for the sake of summer? -Yes.

1387. My suggestion to you is that if we use the greater daylight in summer and leave the

Mr. Pearce-continued.

other quarters of the year unaltered, we get the use of daylight in summer without disturbing Greenwich mean time and without disturbing the habits of the people in the other seven months? Yes, that is true.

1388. That can only be done practically by shifting the clock backwards and forwards?Putting it on.

1389. If that plan were preferred, would you make one shift instead of several ?-Yes, I should myself be so afraid that people in the country would be always making mistakes.

1390. Your experience is of the ocean, is it not? Yes.

1391. We find here that there is an apprehension about the unfamiliar, if I may say so?

-Yes.

1392. This is a “land regulation " ?—Yes. 1393. This proposition is a regulation for the land, not for the ocean?—Yes.

Of

1394. Supposing a plan was adopted of shifting the hour back at the end of the summer? course, you are quite familiar with the way in which the "Dog Watch" works?—Yes.

1395. In order to get the change in the summer we should have in April or May to make one change of an hour?-Yes.

1396. Which hour would you take it out of— which hour of the day would you suppress ?That is to say, if it is to be made once for all?

1397. No, no; suppose we make a change in April, which hour of the 24 hours would you suppress-which would you do without ?-I should take it out in the morning, I think-any hour-eight o'clock.

1398. Any hour?-No, before eight o'clock, I think, as we do it on board ship. We generally take it out of the middle watch-reduce the middle watch. And I think, perhaps, on consideration, I would say between 12 and one.

1399. Would not you think the business of the railways and Post Office ought to settle that question ?-Yes, I should think they ought, certainly.

1400. They find that on the Sunday morning, between two and three o'olock is the best time. Do you agree with that ?—Yes. As I have said, as a rule we should take the middle watch-especially if it shortened it; if it lengthened it, it would not matter when you took it.

1401. Then some day selected in April would be 23 hours long, instead of 24 ?-Yes.

1402. If we reverted in the winter time to the present time, the change would come in September, would it not?—Yes.

1403. Then there would be a day of 25 hours? -Yes.

1404. Would you leave that also to the railways and the Post Office to settle which it ought to be? -Yes.

1405. How would you work it actually on the clock ?-What altering the time do you mean?

1406. Yes. Suppose it was a matter on board ship, you would have no difficulty, would you ?No. We do not alter so much as you say.

1407. No, but you do alter?-Yes. We do often alter, but not so much as you say. We may alter generally in the middle of the night if it shortened it; if it lengthened it, we should

generally

26 May, 1908.]

Mr. Pearce-continued.

generally give more time to the forenoon. That's our usual plan.

1408. That is where the alteration is less than an hour?-Yes.

1409. Is not that the alteration of an hour— somewhat like the whole alteration of a day on the 180th degree of longitude ?-Yes.

1410. There you know what happens. You remember how they manage the changes on the 180th degree of longitude ?-Yes, of course.

1411. I am not quite sure, because I am only a landsman; but I think their plan is, if you are on the 180th degree, and going westward, to make half of the Sunday Saturday, and the other half of it Sunday?The practice on board ship is to have two days similar going west and to call one "antipodes day."

1412. And when you are going the other waycoming eastward, you do the reverse ?--If going east a day is omitted altogether.

1413. You get a double day ?-You have two days the same, practically.

1414. That would be a kind of precedent, would it not, for having two hours in the September month ?—Yes, certainly. I quite agree that if people think the difficulties can be got over of a constant change (which I venture to think very objectionable) that would be the best plan of all. After consideration, and reading Mr. Willett's proposal again, I certainly think that the lengthening of the time in the summer, and leaving it alone in the winter, has considerable advantages, especially as you have mentioned about Greenwich time, only making it a temporary change.

1415. I notice that you speak of Penzance in your statement a good deal; but you are only using that as a sort of illustration, I suppose ?—That is all.

1416. The object is, of course, that the whole of the British Islands-forty millions of people should get more use of summer daylight, that is the whole object?-Is it proposed to make the alteration in Ireland too ?

1417. Yes; but then, as you remember, in 1880, Dublin mean time was made the standard for Ireland ?-Yes.

1418. So that Galway-which is somewhat similar in situation to Penzance-is keeping Dublin time?—Yes, it is keeping Dublin time.

1419. For all civil purposes ?-Yes. 1420. That is a distinction ?-Would you alter the time with regard to Dublin time? Would you keep Dublin time as the standard for Ireland?

1421. Dublin mean time in that case would be varied in the summer an hour or 45 minutes, or an hour and 20 minutes, or whatever it was, just like Great Britain ?-Yes.

1422. It would be inconvenient, I be inconvenient, I think, don't you, to make Ireland so very separate, as to have its time an hour and 40 minutes behind ours?—Yes; I do not see much objection to that, as you are leaving one country for another. Everybody is prepared, when leaving one country for another, to hear that there is a change.

Mr. Pearce-continued.

[Continued.

1423. You do not consider Ireland a separate country, do you?-To a certain extent I do. Its geographical position almost forces it to be a separate country in the question of time, because the difference is so great.

1424. Do you remember that the change of all the local times to Greenwich time was made by the Act of 1880?—Yes.

1425. You consider that was a great gain, do not you, to the community?—Yes, it was, no doubt.

1426. In spite of the position of Penzance and so on ?-Yes, changes of that sort, of course, are constantly made in India, the Cape, and the East, and have been found convenient; but as a rule, it has been convenient to take a sort of central time.

1431. You laid a good deal of stress upon the fact of Penzance time being 20 minutes ahead of Greenwich time, as causing a certain amount of inconvenience if the scheme were carried out in its entirety ?-No, I do ont think it causes inconvenience: as far as the 20 minutes is concerned, I consider it a distinct advantage.

1432. I understood you to say it was one of of your determining motives to have a change of three-quarters of an hour, instead of a change of an hour, because there was this difference of 20 minutes in Penzance time?—Yes.

1433. Now, would your objection be in any way affected if you knew that the Bristol Corporation had expressed its wholesale approval of the Bill? -No.

1434. Would you consider that the views of Bristol would have any guiding effect upon what should be done at Penzance is it sufficiently west?—I should be quite satisfied if the representatives of the Penzance Corporation said they did not think it was objectionable.

1435. But at Bristol?-They probably know. 1436. You do not think Bristol is sufficiently west?-No.

66

1437. It is at least in the same latitude ?— They do not perhaps always take into consideration what is called equation of time." I mean to say, it would bring it home to them, perhaps, that there is more difference than they are aware of.

(The Witness withdrew.)

1438. You

1438. You are a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, and Chairman of the Standard Time Company?-Yes.

1439. Have you had any connection with the electrical synchronisation of standard time?— The Standard Time Company has no monopoly whatever, but happens to be the only company in London at the present time that has wires radiating over a great portion of it for the purpose of correcting clocks hourly and uniformly with Greenwich mean time, and that we call "synchro nising." I want to draw a distinction, in case the point should arise presently, between what is called "synchronising" and what are often called "synchronised clocks," which are merely electrical impulse clocks. Clocks driven by electrical impulse from a master-transmitter, or a master-clock, are all synchronous with the master-transmitter; but the master transmitter is not necessarily synchronous with Greenwich mean time. Do you follow that, Sir? 1440. What would be the advantage of that arrangement, if you had a master clock that did not coincide with Greenwich mean time?-The advantage is, if, supposing for instance the clocks of the House of Commons were electrical impulse clocks, driven by a master clock, all the dials (which are merely mechanical dials-not clocks) would be synchronous in time with the masterclock, and they consequently are often called "synchronised clocks"; but I think it is better to call them "electrical impulse clocks," because if any thing were to happen to the wires from the mastertransmitter, all the dials would stop. Now the difference is, that in clocks synchronised by the Standard Time Company, we deal with all kinds of clocks-anybody's clocks-ordinary independent going clocks. We connect a wire to such clocks from our central station, and then correct them electrically every hour, at the sixtieth second of the sixtieth minute; but if there is any failure in the synchronising wire, or breakage, or anything of that sort, it does not stop such clocks-they are only not being synchronised until that wire is put in order again. That causes only a delay of a few hours. The difference between synchronising" and the so called "synchronised clocks" is one which people do not appreciate.

1441. But is there any reason why this master clock is not connected?-Oh, in a master-clock, the only way to ensure Greenwich mean time— to absolutely ensure it is to have the master transmitter synchronised, and then the masterclock and all its subsidiary dials will show synchronised or Greenwich mean time.

1442. Now, as you are aware, a good deal of objection has been expressed to this scheme on account of the constant alteration of the clocks which it would involve, and the consequent difficulty of getting anything like a fair and proper observance of time. Do you think that your company, the Standard Time Company, would undertake, at a reasonable cost, to set the hours going correctly in big establishments? -Yes, there is no difficulty whatever about it, and there is no difficulty about anyone undertaking

Chairman-continued.

the work. What I am most anxious about is that you should not have in your minds that, if the Standard Time Company does not do it, no one else can. We only happen to be doing it. Half a dozen people might do it—the railway companies could possibly do it for themselves.

1443. Let us take an ordinary household in London, a house of a £100 a year, where there would be, say, four clocks; how would you propose to get these clocks adjusted according to this scheme?—Well. I ignore those altogether, Sir: what we want is a sufficient number of reliable public standards, that is to say, the clocks exhibited to the public, but not, as they do to-day, showing all sorts of times, so much so that they get called "lving clocks and create an outery with regard to them. As to all clocks exhibited to the public, means should be taken to ensure that they show correct time, and if synchronisation is the only way of making them show the correct time, they should be synchronised. If that was so, and the public had a sufficient number of reliable public standards, I think the alterations required in the private home would be made by the householder before retiring to rest on the eve of the changes taking place. You can quite imagine that if this Bill becomes law every newspaper on the proper day will have conspicuously printed “Advance your clocks 20 minutes to-night," or "Put them back 20 minutes"; I do not think there would be any difficulty at all, and I do not think there is any risk at all. What we are troubled about is that there is not a sufficient number of reliable public standards for people to get correct time from.

1441. That would be economically provided, how?-By synchronisation; synchronisation even in a small way is inexpensive, but in a large and general way I am convinced that the cost, bevond the present cost of winding and maintaining public clocks, would be very trifling, very trifling; certainly not more so in the case of a large public clock than an extra guinea a year or something of that sort.

1445. So that you have no objections to offer as regards the mode of procedure adopted by the Bill?-On the contrary, I have given very careful consideration to it, and for clock alteration purposes, mechanically and electrically, I think 20 minutes is an ideal period.

1446. On four Sundays in April?-Yes; the only point I should like to raise on that is this: I do not know whether this is a correct copy of the Bill as it now stands which appears in Mr. Willett's pamphlet. You see in Clauses 1 and 2 the alterations are provided for. In the one case it merely says that the hour shall consist of 40 minutes, and in the other that it shall consist of 80 minutes, but it does not say in what part of the hour the alteration of 20 minutes is to take place.

1447. It says at two o'clock, does it not?-Mr. Willett's representative will be able to tell us that.

26 May, 1908.]

Mr. Pearce-continued.

Mr. Pearce continued.

[Continued.

1454. Does not that dispose of your difficulty? -I am looking at the practical side of this question entirely, as to the alteration of the clocks.

1455. So am I?-If the alteration may take place at any time in the hour-if that is the intention of the Act-it is a very easy matter to alter the synchronised clocks without any further special devices.

1456. Look at the interpretation clause; the interpretation clause is what we are discussing now ?--You are a lawyer, Sir, I think.

1457. I know; but when the hour is fixed by statute to be one only 40 minutes long, what is the next time after the end of that 40 minutes? --Well, the next hour.

1458. Then in that case you would have, in order to keep faith with the statute, to put your clock on 20 minutes ?-When the 40 minutes has elapsed.

1459. When the 40 minutes has elapsed, you would have to put the clock on 20 minutes ?-Yes. 1460. Because that first hour is to be 40 minutes long ?-Yes.

1461. You must keep faith with the statute as to that?—Yes.

1462. It is only 40 minutes long?—Yes. 1463. Therefore the next hour will be three o'clock, by the Bill?-Yes; equivalent to twoforty o'clock.

1464. Then you have to put on your clock 20 minutes ?—Yes.

1465. There is no difficulty about that at all, is there?—Yes, there is a difficulty about the sudden alteration of 20 minutes of the clock.

1466. A sudden alteration ?—Yes.

1467. What is the difficulty in putting the hands forward ?-There is a difficulty, to start with, in striking clocks; you cannot put the hands of a striking clock 20 minutes forwards or backwards without affecting its strike.

1468. That is a question of the mode of doing it, is it not? Yes, it is a question of the mode of doing it.

1469. If you take the hand on 19 minutes 59 seconds, and then let it wait, your striking apparatus will apply, will not it ?-Yes, if you

1470. Putting it on 20 minutes, I am thinking of that?-You will affect the striking apparatus of any clock that strikes the half hours and the quarters.

1471. If you put it on 20 minutes ?-Yes, if you put it on 20 minutes you pass the quarter. 1472. Are you referring to a special clock ?No; I am referring to any ordinary clock-church and turret clocks-large clocks used as public standards, in other words.

1473. These particular difficulties are rather useful, you see ?—Yes.

1474. How would you get over that difficulty? -The ideal time for mechanically and electrically changing a large clock 20 minutes seems to me to be 10 minutes to the hour and 10 minutes past the hour.

1475. Will you explain why?—It is very simple. You can quite imagine a clock with big hands. Now that clock is standing at 10 minutes past 12 (pointing to the clock in the Committee room).

1476. Yes?—If you wanted that clock advanced 20 minutes-I am not speaking of clocks of this type, but of large ones. If you

1477. Public striking clocks?—Yes. once realise that the minute hand were mechani

cally and electrically released it would drop exactly 20 minutes, it would drop to the halfhour (illustratin with hour (illustrating with the clock produced). You follow that, do you not?

1478. Yes?-In the same way when the time came to put back the big clocks, if you really wanted to put the clock back 20 minutes, the ideal time to release the minute hand is at 10 minutes to the hour, and then it would fall down to the half-hour.

1479. Very well; is there any reason why under the Bill that should not be done ?-Not at all; I am only trying to give you some practical suggestions for the suggestions for the purpose of your Bill here.

1480. There is no difficulty about that practical mode of changing the time ?—No, it could be done mechanically and electrically.

1481. In that case you would drop the 20 minutes back from the 10 minutes to the hour? -Yes.

1482. When you drop the hands back you would have the hour 80 minutes ?-Yes.

1483. Similarly when you dropped the 10 minutes past down to the half-hour you would make that hour 20 minutes shorter ?-When you drop it forward it would fall down to the halfhour there (describing). You shorten the hour by 20 minutes; in the other case you lengthen it. 1484. Only 20 minutes you lengthen it ?—Yes. 1485. That is quite a practicable mode ?Quite a practicable mode.

1486. How about the striking ?-That presents difficulties which I think could be got over. You can quite imagine that for that hour, or perhaps for that night, it might be necessary to hang up the striking apparatus of striking clocks and leave then not striking.

1487. And that could be done ?-That could be done.

1488. Would it in your opinion be better that that

26 May, 1908.]

Mr. Pearce-continued.

that should be done once a year, or four times a year, or eight times a year?-I entirely agree with Mr. Willett's plan.

1489. You entirely agree with Mr. Willett's plan? You see no difficulty ?-No difficulty at all. If I may describe the synchronising, of ordinary spring-wound clocks, what we do is this: You can imagine this current is passing through from our central station to a clock. This is simply an ordinary clock (illustrating). It is of the same type as that clock is up there (pointing to the Committee room clock). What we do to that is just to put a cam on the minute hand and attach this magnet and arm to the clock (illustrating). The effect of that is, if when the clock is coming to the hour it is slow-the minute hand is now slowprecisely at the 60th second of the 60th minute the current goes out from our central station through all the clocks, and that clock is put correct-so (illustrating). Now for the purpose of the Bill I will show how we should make the alterations if we had to do it with no other than

the present apparatus. It involves a little give and take. But perhaps in the Bill you may be able to suggest some more practical method to effect the same object. Now I want to make my 20 minutes alteration in this synchronised clock. I am going to advance my clock 20 minutes, according to your Bill. I should do it without altering that mechanical and electrical arrangement there at all. I should pass through my current at 10 minutes to two, and thus I bring the minute hand to the hour and gain 10 minutes of the 20 required. I cannot do any more to it until the minute hand comes round again to 10 minutes to three, when in the same way I advance it suddenly 10 minutes more, so that at three o'clock you have got the full 20 minutes alteration (illustrating). That is how I put it forward. Now putting it backward I should wait until the clock came to 10 minutes past two and then I should put the current through to put it back 10 minutes. I should then have to wait until it came to 10 minutes past again, then pass the current once more, and then the clock will have been retarded the required 20 minutes.

Chairman.

1490. What is the objection to gaining the whole 20 minutes ?-I say we could do what I have shown without making any alteration whatever in our present apparatus.

1491. If you have two similar adjustments you would get the 20 minutes ?-To advance the clock 20 minutes at one stroke I should have to put a different arrangement altogether into the clock, and it could easily be done; but considering the Bill from a practical point of view I have endeavoured not to disturb existing arrangements more than can possibly be helped.

Mr. Pirie.

1492. While you are still at the clock may I ask you if it would be possible to show us this: Suppose it was decided to alter the time by half an hour?-Well, for half an hour we should probably do it in two quarters without altering the existing apparatus.

M

Mr. Pirie-continued.

73

[Continued.

1493. You would do it in two quarters as easily as you did the two 10 minutes?-Yes, you see there are so many types of clock. This is an ordinary type of a spring wound clock, such as you have throughout the whole of this building, and such as people generally have, but you must think of clocks which set standards, for people to set their time by. There, of course, you are dealing with a different mechanism again, and for this mechanism I think 20 minutes is an ideal thing, and you would probably find the practical way for it to be effected would be by releasing the minute hand in the way I have described to you.

Mr. Pearce.

1494. Now let me ask you another sort of question. Tell me this: On these operations you get certain minutes which are reckoned over twice; when on a circular clock you add 20 minutes to an hour and make an hour of 80 minutes long, you do it by counting every second 20 minutes twice?-I do it then by two operations of 10 minutes each.

1495. They have to be counted twice ?-Yes.

1496. Very well, but in practice how shall we be able to distinguish the earlier 10 minutes from the second 10 minutes or 20 minutes ?-Well, that is not ideal, of course. The ideal is to make your change at the time you require it made.

1497. I want to keep your mind on this: We have an hour which will be an hour and 20 minutes long on all the clocks in the country, they being circular machines; that extra 20 minutes has to be reckoned twice ?-Yes.

1498. Is not that so ?-Yes.

1499. Do you follow me about that?—Yes.

1500. In order to get the hour of 80 minutes, at three o'clock you put your clock back to 2.40, and you reckon 2.40 up to three o'clock over twice?-Yes, quite so.

1501. Now, in practice, how would you distinguish which hour it was, each time it was?-Well, now, when you want to advance your clock, you are taking 20 minutes out of the hour, are you not?

1502. That is easy ?-When you want to retard your clock, you want to get 20 minutes more into the hour.

1503. Yes?-My suggestion is that the practical way is that at 10 minutes to three you would drop the minute hand back to half-past two straight away.

1504. You have already reckoned in that hour 2.30, 2.31, up to 2.40 ?-Yes, up to 2.50.

1505. Then you drop the hand back again and then begin to reckon again another 2.30, 2.31, 2.32, 2.33? Yes.

1506. Apparently ?-Apparently.

1507. How are you going to distinguish between these two sets of time?-That is one of the difficulties of the Bill. It takes place between two and three in the morning.

1508. You do not see in practice any practical way of doing it?-No.

1509. Then do you gather that the time selected, viz., Sunday morning early between two and three o'clock, is fixed upon ?-Yes.

1510. Because, although there is an inconvenience in September, that is the time that it would be less felt by the community ?-Perfectly. 1511. That

12