SAVING DAYLIGHT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9132, 3 July 1908, Page 4

SAVING DAYLIGHT.

A cablegram from London yesterday morning stated that a Select Committee of the House of Commons had reported in favour of the Daylight Saving Bill, which proposes to advance the clock by one hour upon the third Sunday of April, and to alter it in the opposite direction by one hour on the third Sunday in September. The originator of the idea believes that the gain in daylight by the acceptance of four Sundays each 23 hours and 40 minutes long would give people more sleep and more exercise, and put millions of pounds into their pockets. The saving to the nation by reduced consumption of artificial light would be at least £2,500,000 a year. Some interesting expert evi- J dence was given before the Select Committee of the of Commons recently on this subject. Sir Robert Ball,, the eminent astronomer, said he j did not see any great scientific objection to the scheme, because they had already various ' kinds of time, and one additional alteration would not cause much inconvenience. Further, he did not believe that the introduction of the scheme 1 would be any great drawback as far as scientific instruments were concerned. He said that the question appeared to him to be largely a practical one. The schene had admitted benefits, and if employers of labour, such as the great, railway companies, were satisfied with the alteration, there would be no scientific objection to it. But Sir David Gill, late Astrononu r .Royal at the Cap?, opposed a. alteration of the clock, and regarded the proposal as "essentially 'a 'wild-cat' scheme." He had h:»d experience of moving the (dock in Cape Colony. Despite the utmost care and publicity, the result was dire confusion. Asked if the scheme would not be beneficial in that it would induce people to get up earlier he replied that they could not make people get up by altering the clock. On the other hand, Dr. Rambunt, formerly Astronomer Royal for Ireland, believed that the scheme would prove practicable, and that the slight inconvenience caused by it would be more than balanced by the moral and physical advantages. A representative of the British Horological Institute said the general opinion of clock-makers was that a change of this kind was desirable, but they favoured a permanent change of the clock, a proposal which Sir Robert Ball condemned as useless.