網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版
[blocks in formation]

1657. I see you had a largely attended general meeting of the Chamber?-Yes, on Tuesday, the 19th of this month.

1658. What resolution was it that was then passed. Will you kindly read it ?—The resolution was as follows:-"That this meeting of members of the London Chamber of Commerce, having heard the address by Mr. William Willett, approves in principle of the provisions of the Daylight Saving Bill, now before Parliament, and requests the Council to take such action in support as it may deem advisable."

1659. Was that passed without any dissentient voice?—I may say with enthusiasm, without one dissentient.

1660. That practically commits the London Chamber of Commerce to the view that they are in favour of the Bill?-That does, Sir, wholly. That was a meeting called to discuss it.

1661. It is what you call a "plenary" meeting? -Quite so.

1662. Now will you kindly develop your views with regard to this matter?-Well, Sir, speaking as a manufacturer, as well as the Deputy Chairman of the Council of the London Chamber of Commerce, I may say that I have had a great deal of experience with the workmen of London, especially in the East, and my knowledge has been that all the workers have preferred to start earlier in the morning, if they could leave correspondingly earlier in the evening. Some years ago we used to start at eight o'clock, but at the suggestion of our managers, we altered our hours by making them half-past seven, leaving correspondingly earlier in the evening, and the result has been most satisfactory. I have also taken an opportunity of putting the suggestions contained in this Bill before the workers in my factory, and, without one exception, all have been in favour of the proposed alteration. I believe that it I believe that it would be an immense benefit to the working classes of this country. The saving of expense (although I do not agree with the suggestions put forward by Sir George Livesey) is a minor matter. I think it would be an immense gain, especially to the working classes of this country, if some such Bill as is sketched here before us came into operation. I may say also, Sir, that I believe it would be a distinct gain to the cause of temperance. I have, in the course of my business career, spent a great many evenings in the East End of London, and my experience is that the public-houses are more generally patronised after twilight, and if the working classes were able to engage in some healthy outdoor exercise in daylight I firmly believe that the public-houses would be less largely patronised. The men would go home, say, from their work or their amusement, practically at the time to go to bed, and therefore, say, at ten o'clock in summer time, when daylight failed, they would have no inducement then to spend an hour or two in drinking, as I fear is now often the case.

1663. Do you think the Bank of England, and other important banks, would be able to adjust their hours of opening and closing?-I do not believe there would be the smallest difficulty about that. I may say it has been suggested

[ocr errors]

Chairman-continued.

[Continued.

by one distinguished witness here that if the Bank of England would put forward its time by one hour the whole results which this Bill aims to obtain would be gained. I think, Sir, that that is really quite absurd. I may remind the Committee that the London bankers (some ten years ago it may be) altered their time on Saturdays from two o'clock to one o'clock, and the gain to the general working commercial body has been absolutely nil. Of course, if the bankers and those financial houses that depend upon them would alter their hours of business it would be a gain, undoubtedly, to those directly concerned.

1664. You mean the result has been nil, because the change has not been universal ?-The change has not been universal. The change has had no effect at all on the general body of workers. There must be difficulties and inconveniences in an alteration of this kind, clearly, but the only serious difficulties I have had presented to me, and I think they are quite easy of adjustment, are those in connection with foreign markets, Stock Exchange markets, especially in the western hemisphere, where I can quite see that the times that calls are received at certain times of the day will lead to a certain disarrangement and difficulty for the time being, but I see no difficulty at all in re-adjusting them.

1665. Will you tell the Committee how many persons were present at the meeting of the London Chamber of Commerce when the resolution was passed?-I think about 150 to 200.

1666. You consider that it was a representative meeting?-Thoroughly. I may say it was one of the largest gatherings in connection with a special subject that we have ever had.

1667. From your experience you are fully convinced of the necessity of legislative action ?— It is the only possible way of making any such alteration become general.

1668. And, speaking as a manufacturer, you are equally convinced of the advantages that would accrue to your workmen if a Bill of this sort were to pass?—I think really this is a workmen's Bill, and that for workers this is most necessary.

1669. The next most important point is the methods by which effect could be given to this Bill. Have you considered the gradual alteration of time as foreshadowed in the Bill, or whether any alternative suggestion would be more practicable? -Well, that is a difficult point, Sir, and I was in doubt whether it would not be better to make one alteration rather than three or four, but, after having thoroughly considered it, I am inclined to believe that a gradual alteration would be better than one sudden alteration.

1670. Do the alterations recommended in the Bill commend themselves to your judgment ?Well, I think they are reasonable. It might be questioned whether some regulation as to a standard of a quarter of an hour, or a half hour might not be better; but I think a gradual one is better than a sudden alteration.

1671. Was that matter at all discussed at this meeting of the Chamber of Commerce ?—The question was raised whether it would not be possible to adopt Mid-European time, the one hour all the year round, but it was very quickly abandoned.

28 May, 1908.]

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.

Mr. MACHIN.

85

[Continued.

abandoned.

Chairman--continued.

It was thought that the remedy, in the winter months particularly, would be worse than the disease, and it was not persisted in at all; it was held to be very undesirable.

1672. Was the further point discussed as to a six-monthly or five monthly adoption of MidEuropean time ?-No, Sir, that was not discussed at all.

1673. And the impression left upon your mind distinctly was, I gather, that your Chamber of Commerce altogether approves both of the Bill and the provisions of it?-I may say, Sir, that I was surprised at the unanimity and the enthusiasm with which the proposal was received. Mr. Holt.

1674. You told us that in your manufactory you altered the hours from eight o'clock to 7.30 ?-It was so; yes.

1675. Now what are your hours?-Half-past seven until six.

1676. 7.30 to six ?-Yes, and from half-past seven to one on Saturdays.

1677. Yours is a manufacturing concern? Manufacturing-confectionery and preserves. 1678. That is carried on all the year round ?— All the year round.

1679. What is there to prevent an arrangement with your workpeople, if they like and you like, during the summer months, to alter your hours from what they are now to 6.30 to five? That would be most inconvenient and undesirable, in this way: The Factory Acts are very stringent as a rule, and rightly so. We and the textile factories employ a very considerable amount of women labour, and we are compelled to observe stated intervals for meals. We cannot employ any body of women or young persons for more than five hours at a stretch without giving them one hour for meal time, and if we began at six or half-past six that would bring our meal time to half-past 11, which would interefere with all other routine business, and would be most inconvenient, and, in fact, unworkable.

1680. What time is the meal-time now?Half-past 12. That is quite early enough.

1681. Your workpeople apparently think that the Bill would be a good plan of effecting a change? -They do.

1682. Sir George Livesey's workpeople think that it would not ?-Quite so.

1683. The first suggestion that strikes one is that the reason of this difference of opinion is that your workpeople begin at 7.30 and his at six? With all due respect to Sir George Livesey, Sir, I think the real reason is that the Bill has not been fully explained.

1684. Is it not possible that people who work from 7.30 to six may think it a very good a very good thing to have their work hours made an hour earlier than that, whereas people who work from six to five do not see the advantage of it ?-That is quite possible; I quite accept that interpretation. There is no doubt something in that, I admit.

1685. That is a reasonable explanation ?-That is quite a possible one.

1686. Do you think the question of whether it

Mr. Holt-continued.

is better to have an early hour made earlier would be affected by the wish of the people themselves? -I quite see that argument; that is reasonable. 1687. It might be desirable for some, and not equally desirable for others?-Quite so.

1688. You think an alteration of bank hours would not have the desired effect?-From the commercial point of view of making it general such an idea is grotesque to my mind.

1689. It would affect bankers?-It might bankers, but not the general public.

manufac

1690. Not manufacturers ?—Not turers. The only persons it would affect, I think, are the bankers and their staff, and those closely connected with the Stock Exchange, or with banking business.

1691. Is it not a fact that banking hours largely rule the holidays and working hours of ordinary days? I should entirely differ from that view. It is an old-fashioned idea, perhaps, but to my mind, as a fact, it is non-existent.

1692. From my experience I should have thought it was so ?-My experience is that, whatever the banks choose to do, the manufacturers and traders of the country will not pay the smallest attention to it, but will go their own way.

1693. Certainly, from what you have said, the Saturday half-holiday has got much more general since the banks started closing earlier on Saturday? -It might possibly be that; but these holidays have been largely influenced by one distinguished man who has been a witness here, Lord Avebury.

1694. That is Bank Holidays?—Bank Holidays and the earlier hours generally.

1695. You think it is impossible for individual people to adopt earlier hours?—I should say it is not impossible, but it is absolutely impossible to expect that it will be done. It never will be done except by Act of Parliament; that I am firmly convinced of.

1696. By an Act of Parliament that must deal not with the hours of work only, but must alter the clock so to speak?-Well, to give some standard settled policy, which will practically make a thing of this kind universal without making any great disturbance.

1697. You see, unless people agree to work the same nominal hours after you have passed this Act, unless it is made a direction, it will produce no result whatever?-Making the day the same length for everybody?

1698. No. Take your own case; assume that a man works from 7.30 to six ?—Yes. 1699. Unless all would work from 7.30 to six, this Bill would produce no result if it became an Act of Parliament ?-That is so, practically.

1700. Suppose you say: "They have passed this silly Act, but no one need take any notice of it "; it would be of no effect?-Yes, that is so.

1701. You think it would be unworkable?—It could very easily be avoided.

1702. We know that really the whole thing depends upon a general consensus of opinion that it is better to adopt it?-Whether it should be made really operative or not?

1703. Yes?-Quite so. This Act is not intended to be compulsory.

1704. It is not compulsory ?-Oh, no.

1705. Therefore

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Holt-continued. 1705. Therefore the thing naturally occurs to me, and I think it would to other people, that if the whole thing depends upon a voluntary consensus of opinion, is it necessary to have such an Act at all?-That I think is very clearly explained, because the basis of it is that people desire (as I have pointed out to you) to work an hour earlier in the morning and leave off an hour earlier at night. We could not do that at present, owing to the irregularity and the inconvenient hours at which we should be compelled to take our breakfast.

1706. You are practically under the Factory Act? Not entirely. That is Act?-Not one objection. Then the railway carriers call at our factory at certain times for goods. We have railway vans calling at our works every day, and they would be calling when we were closing; their trains would go at the usual stated times, and we could not carry on our business, which would mean that we should be compelled to keep our works open half an hour or an hour extra in the evening, unless the railway companies would alter their times.

Chairman.

1707. And the Post Office ?-And the Post Office, and everything. I wish to say one word in connection with an argument I saw advanced, namely, that if this Act came into force it would, or it might, be made the means of prolonging the working hours of a working day by certain manufacturers. I think that is quite impossible. I think labour is now so highly organised that it would resist any such attempt, and that public opinion would support it. I do not think that is in any way possible.

1708. Then that is an objection that has no weight, according to your idea, at all?—No, not the smallest.

Mr. Holt.

1709. It must be obvious that, if we were going to get all the advantages anticipated from this Bill, the working hours of a good many people will have to be prolonged ?—I do not see why it should be so.

1710. First of all, obviously, the train service during the day will have to be carried on for a longer period?—I am afraid I do not follow

you.

1711. If you will allow me to say so, one of the advantages claimed for this measure is this: take your own workmen, they are going to stop

work at five o'clock instead of at six ?-But it will be six o'clock by the clock, the recognised time.

1712. I want to avoid confusion. Let us talk about present time only ?-Yes.

1713. They are going to stop at five o'clock; they now stop at six o'clock by the clock; they would then stop at five by the present time? -Quite so.

1714. In that event, the advantage of that is that they are going to get a much longer evening? Yes.

1715. They are going to be, up to eight o'clock in the evening, out in the open air ?—Yes.

[Continued.

Mr. Holt-continued. 1716. It must mean that, if they stopped their recreation, they would have abundant time to do all these things which they would not have done in an hour less; they would be coming home and doing a great many things at eight o'clock that they would not otherwise be doing. The trains must go on and run as usual?—I do not see that at all. Those having recreation and stopping at eight o'clock will then stop at nine o'clock, or they will get a train at 10 o'clock instead of at nine o'clock. nine o'clock. I do not see any objection at all.

1717. I do not say that there is any objection, but a suggestion has been made that people would go into the country who otherwise would not have gone?-Quite so.

1718. That means a considerable amount of work for other people?-In what way.

1719. As regards the people who work the service?I do not think so.

1720. It must be so ?-I should have thought that the whole tendency of modern-day legislation and social surroundings was to induce people to take more recreation and go further into the country to enjoy themselves.

1721. The effect of this Bill must be, if it is going to be a success, to make the actual number of hours used in a day greater, and the number of hours spent in bed less?—I cannot agree to that. I cannot accept that argument, I am afraid, at all.

1722. Do not you think this argument really means that you are going to make use of a certain amount of time which is now spent in business, that is now going to be used for recreation, and you are going to make that up in business by taking something out of the time spent in bed?-We may put it in another way: valuable time spent in bed will be used for work; people who appreciate the daylight may go to bed earlier and spend the dark in bed instead of the light.

1723. You think they will go?-I do not think they will go to bed the whole hour and 20 minutes earlier, but they will go earlier in the evening. The last train now that is run at 12 they are doing now. o'clock will run an hour later by the clock, just as

1724. You do not think they will go by another train?-I do not suggest that they will put another train on.

1725. You do not?-No, not for a moment.

1726. Representatives of the railway companies have told us that, with regard to pleasure-seeking districts, they would have to do so?-They might, instead of bringing people back between nine and 10 o'clock at night, put on another later train. That is a question for them to decide.

1727. You do think that people will not go to bed the whole hour earlier?-Possibly not the whole hour, possibly the greater portion of it.

1728. Three-quarters of an hour?-I should say, if you put it an hour and 20 minutes, threequarters of an hour would be about the time, that is my impression.

Chairman.

1729. Do not you think that, if extra work were really entailed in certain departments of national industry, it would be possible to have other shifts

of

[blocks in formation]

of workmen ?-That, Sir, would clearly adjust itself. Either these people would get extra remuneration, or, as I suggest, there would be double shifts to work, clearly.

1730. And the disadvantage or the objection Mr. Holt refers to would be entirely obviated?I think so. I am sorry to say I cannot follow Mr. Holt's objection.

Mr. Pearce.

1731. Supposing the hour change were adopted, when in your opinion should the change be made?—Well, as early as possible, but that is one of the objections to having the alteration made in one lump.

1732. Have you considered anything like a date? -I cannot say I have altogether. I should say that if it came at all it should come before the end of April; that is the hour altogether.

Mr. Pearce-continued.

1733. Not much before the end of April, you think ?—No.

1734. When do you think, if that change was made, we should revert to it back ?—I should say the middle of September; about the middle of September.

1735. You recognise twilight ?—I should think twilight then is waning.

1736. The day is very short then, and so it is in April; that is quite true ?-September, as you know, is often a lovely month, and I think the middle of September would be a useful time.

1737. The heat of the day rather trends towards the afternoon than earlier ?—Yes, it does. 1738. That is a feature in the matter.-Yes.

(The Witness withdrew.)

Mr. EDWARD SATTERTHWAITE called in; and Examined.

Chairman.

1739. You are on the Committee of the London Stock Exchange ?-I am the Secretary of the Committee of the Stock Exchange.

1740. And you have been deputed by the committee to come to give evidence to-day ?-No, Sir, I have not. My Chairman yesterday received an urgent request for us to send someone here to-day at 11.30. But the matter has not been discussed by the committee. Any opinion I could give to-day would only be my own personal opinion.

1741. Do they contemplate considering it ?—I do not think the matter has been raised before them. They are perfectly willing, Sir, to write a memorandum, as the Chairman said in his letter to your clerk, if you wish it.

1742. Well, of course, it would be a very great benefit to this Committee, because one of the principal objections which has been brought to this Bill is that it would very considerably affect the transactions that take place between this country and western countries; America notably? -Undoubtedly it would.

1743. That it would curtail the hours that are now available for the carrying out of those transactions?-Undoubtedly it would, most seriously. I can answer that without any memorandum, but if you would like the memorandum written, Sir, and if your clerk will kindly indicate the particular points on which you wish the opinion of the committee, I think I can guarantee that it shall be written for you.

1744. I think the Committee would like very much to have a reasoned opinion from the Committee of the London Stock Exchange as regards the general effect and possible tendency of this Bill, if it were passed into law; how it would affect Stock Exchange operations generally, and particularly in regard to transactions with the western hemisphere and the eastern hemisphere ? -Yes, Sir, I think I can undertake to get that done.

1745. And, further, as regards the methods proposed to be adopted to carry out the provisions of the Bill. You may have heard that some

Chairman-continued.

objections have been raised to the partial alteration of time extending over four weeks of the year in the month of April ?—Yes.

1746. Other suggestions have been made that an hour, equal to Mid-European time, might be put on for certain portions of the year, the summer months of the year; on these points the considered view of the Stock Exchange would be very much appreciated by this Select Committee.

Mr. Pearce.

1747. I agree. I think it might be convenient that this witness should visit us again with that reasoned opinion; it would be better than taking his evidence now.

Mr. Pirie.

1748. And also as to what steps, perhaps, the Stock Exchange would take to adjust itself to the new conditions, especially of the western markets, on the assumption that the Bill became law? I do not think that would depend upon us very much; it would depend upon the western markets.

1749. Upon the various houses-especially the American, I think ?-Yes. You see at present the New York Stock Exchange opening at 10 o'clock, and the London Stock Exchange closing at four; there is one hour during which both markets are open at the same time. As I understand the effect of the Bill (which I only read yesterday), it would for five months in the year, or rather more, bring about a position of affairs by which the two markets would be never open at the same time. I do not think that any adjustment of our hours in London would affect that position. It would have to be some adjustment of the hours in the United States and in Canada.

Mr. Holt.

1750. The Stock Exchange in London might keep open till five o'clock ?-Then will the Post Office take their letters later? You see the close of the Stock Exchange is practically regulated, or to a large extent regulated, by the time at

[blocks in formation]

1751. Do you think you could give us information, not now, but in your report, as to the comparative volume of Stock Exchange transactions between America and Great Britain, as compared with the total Stock Exchange business? -I think that would be very difficult, Sir, because all business is not recorded, but I can tell you that it is a very large proportion of the active business. 1752. And increasing ?-It increases and decreases from time to time.

1753. But I mean the general tendency of telegraphic business must be to increase ?-The general tendency over a series of years must be to

increase.

Mr. Holt.

1754. Have you got a direct cable from your Stock Exchange in London right into the New York Stock Exchange ?-Well, it is as near as possible that.

1755. Perhaps when you come back you could show us a statement of the number of telegrams normally exchanged between London and New York in that hour. It would be very useful to us if you could ?-I think you would have to get that from the cable companies.

Mr. Holt-continued.

[Continued.

1756. You have not any means of providing it ?—No, I have not. You would have to get that from the Anglo-American and the Commercial Cable Companies.

Mr. Pirie.

1757. We may take it that you personally are against the Bill ?-Oh, certainly.

1758. That is your personal view?-That is my personal view, and I cannot bind anybody else.

1759. Is your personal view arrived at entirely from your business relations, or is it from the consideration of the public weal ?-From a business point of view, Sir.

1760. Have you looked at the Bill at all from the point of view of public good ?-Oh no, Sir, not at all. I only saw the Bill yesterday. I have not heard it talked about at all in the City.

Mr. Holt.

1761. I understand that you came here to give the views of the Stock Exchange on the Bill, not the views of the public ?-I really only came to give my own views.

Chairman.

1762. Will you kindly let us know when you can favour the Committee with your official evidence ?-Yes.

(The Witness withdrew.)

Mr. JOSEPH JOHN CROSFIELD, J.P., called in; and Examined.

Chairman.

1763. What is your occupation?-I am Deputy Chairman and a Managing Director of Joseph Crosfield & Sons, Limited, soap and chemical manufacturers, at Warrington.

1764. You come here to give evidence with regard to Mr. Willett's Bill?—Yes, which I support on behalf of my company, and on my own behalf, most strongly.

1765. Will you kindly briefly develop your arguments?—I think I cannot do better than give you the experience of our office staff. My company employs about 1,500 hands, and we have an office staff of about 100 clerks, besides typists and managers. In 1901 our office hours were the same as in the district, that was nine to six, and an hour for lunch, but in order to improve the position of our clerks and their health, we shortened the hours by half an hour, closing at 5.30, and gave them every second Thursday a half holiday, provided their work was done. In June, 1904, we asked them if in the summer months they would like to come half an hour earlier and close half an hour earlier, in order that they might have as much daylight as possible in the summer months. This alteration in working hours was tried, and it was so much appreciated by the staff that when October the first came, when we had originally intended to go back to the later hours, they asked us to make it permanent. Now the result of these alterations has been that our staff has an hour more daylight

Chairman-continued.

in summer than it had before, and I cannot too strongly emphasise the benefit to the health of the staff and the improvement in the work done for the company which has been the result. The business of the company has increased year by year for many years past, and our office staff has remained practically stationary, and I attribute that largely to the better health of the clerks, and the fact that they can do more work for the company in the same time.

1766. Then do we understand that the change has been made permanent in your establishment? -It has, yes.

1767. How does it work during the winter months?—The hours are the same during the winter months; we do not change. A further alteration which we should like to make at present, and which is desired by our staff, is that we should open another half-hour earlier (that is open at 8 o'clock), and close at 4.30.

1768. Eight o'clock, Greenwich time ?-Yes, but unfortunately that is not possible. There are many hindrances to that; train services are not convenient for those who live outside the town, postal arrangements affect matters, clerks who live at home have their regular dinner hour, and if we opened our office a half-hour earlier than we do, it would naturally make too long an interval between the clerk's breakfast and his lunch. Then there is another thing, we cannot close our office an hour or an hour and a half before other people close

« 上一頁繼續 »