May ii> 1916] 



NATURE 



321 



character very slowly. Brewster himself uses language 

 about Thomas Young and the undulatory theory which 

 recalls the fact that though a statesman had a great 

 share in it, it was not the State that drummed the 

 greatest philosopher since Newton out of the ranks of 

 science. Something more of regard for the genus 

 humanum, the statesman's care, and a little less 

 attention to the ingenio superavit, the examiner's busi- 

 ness, seem necessary to give science its true position. 



Lest I should be thought merely to be indulging in 

 the prevalent habit of "grousing," let me briefly ex- 

 plain. The exponents of science in this country have 

 allowed the issues of the inevitable conflict of studies 

 in science to be dictated everywhere from the exam- 

 ination point of view. That calamity — for it is nothing 

 short of it — is more largely responsible for the apathy 

 of the State towards science than is generally acknow- 

 ledged. 



So far has our control by examination extended that 

 it is not too much to say that, for the general, our 

 education has become the art of passing examinations 

 without having to think, and the educational pro- 

 fession is, in practice, the only human occupation for 

 which a general education is not required. 



The difficulty is a real one, but it must be faced; 

 we must find something better to offer, as our idea 

 of education inspired by the study of nature, than 

 30 per cent, of what is set out in the examination 

 papers put before an individual student in one or other 

 of the alternative courses controlled by men of science. 

 Specialists are, of course, the corps d'ilite of the 

 army of science, but they ought to be persuaded not 

 to use the nursery as their battleground. That is our 

 business, and we can do it if we will. 



Napier Shaw. 



The Daylight Saving Scheme. 



I SHALL be glad if you will allow me to deal with 

 the objections raised to the daylight saving scheme in 

 NATUREof April 27. I have had to content myself with 

 identifying these by the numbers of your paragraphs. 



(i) Though people engaged in the trades you men- 

 tion may not receive the same benefits from the 

 operation of a Daylight Saving Act as in the case of 

 the rest of the population, those at least who are 

 interested in gardening and in any form of athletics 

 would benefit from an extra hour of daylight at the 

 end of their day, and all would effect a saving in 

 artificial light. I have also dealt with this question 

 in my reply to your objection (6). From the fact that 

 these trades regulate their times more by the sun 

 than by the clock, it must at least be granted that 

 they would take no harm from the Act. 



(2) If, as seems probable, the daylight saving prin- 

 cipk is universally adopted in Europe, there is no 

 reason why there should be any more chaos than at 

 present. It was not proposed to interfere with Green- 

 wich mean time, and that would" remain as the 

 universal standard just as it is to-day. Such difficul- 

 ties as would arise in this respect are only of such 

 a nature as could be got over. 



(3) Those places which get twilight all night would 

 not suffer by an alteration of the clock, even though 

 they might not reap any special benefit. A large 

 majority of the population of Great Britain lives in 

 the southern half of the kingdom. 



(4) The reason that the proposed date of altering 

 clock time back to Greenwich mean time was fixed for 

 the third week in September jk&s that at the end of j 

 the vear the atmosphere in the early morning is 

 usually warmer than that which we experience in 

 March and the beginning of April, frosts being prac- I 

 ticallv unknown in September. , 



(5)' I sincerelv hope that the intelligence and resource i 

 of the gentlemen responsible for these matters are not I 

 NO. 2428, VOL. 97] 



of such a low order as to be unable to deal with such 

 questions as may arise. 



(6) I think that your approximate calculation of the 

 additional darkness which the early-morning workers 

 would experience has failed to take into account the 

 fact that it is light about three-quarters of an hour 

 before sunrise. Very few of those starting work at 

 6 a.m. would require to use artificial light to rise by. 

 Certainly in September there would be some addi- 

 tional use of light in the morning. 



(7) Granting that there would be some additional 

 use of fuel in the morning, you fail to notice that there 

 would be a corresponding saving in the evening. 



(8) Nobody appreciates the value of the scientific 

 method more than I do. Might 1 suggest that the 

 daylight saving scheme is less a question of absolute 

 science than of social and political science? Your 

 principal argument is that it is the scientific men who 

 should decide as to whether or not the provisions of 

 the measure should be adopted, and that they as a 

 body have not expressed their support. The real 

 reason of this is that it is not a question that interests 

 them as a whole in their scientific capacities. All. 

 scientific men are interested in time measurement, but 

 they are principally interested in the actual lengths of 

 the units of time, viz., of minutes and hours. Those 

 who have special interest in the relation of clock time 

 to solar time are practically confined to the astro- 

 nomers, meteorologists, and navigators. Of the five 

 astronomers who have taken up the subject, three 

 were in favour of the Bill. They were the late Sir 

 Robert Ball, Prof. Rambaut, and Prof. Turner. On 

 the other hand. Sir William Christie and the late Sir 

 David Gill opposed the Bill. To anyone who care- 

 fully reads the evidence given by these latter gentle- 

 men before the Parliamentary Committee of 1908, it 

 is quite clear that their opposition was based, not on 

 scientific grounds, but merely on grounds of social 

 expediency, and their replies to the questions of the 

 Committee are largely filled with discussions of the 

 habits of shopkeepers, clerks, factor}- hands, etc., 

 on which subjects scientific eminence is scarcely neces- 

 sar)' in order to make one expert. As a matter of 

 fact. Sir William Christie, in replying to the ques- 

 tion, " The idea of the Bill is not altogether so un- 

 reasonable as it might on the face of it appear?" 

 replied, " No, my view is rather that it does not obtain 

 the greatest convenience. That is really my argument 

 here," etc 



I should scarcely imagine that the rejection of a 

 private Bill by Parliament would be accepted by men 

 of science as a final test of the social value of the 

 measure; however, this is what you suggest to them. 

 In your section No. 7 you make a suggestion as to 

 the reason of our customary time-table. I think really 

 that our time-table has developed to suit the winter 

 light conditions, as such a one is the only single 

 unaltered time-table which is reasonably workable 

 throughout the year. H. W. M. Willett. 



Sloane Square, London, S.W., May 2. 



[We deal elsewhere in this issue with the main 

 points of Mr. Willett 's letter. — Editor.] 



Avoiding Zeppelins. 



A little knowledge of spherical perspective would 

 materially reduce the loss of life due to Zeppelins. 

 There is no danger from a bomb dropped by one of 

 these vessels unless the latter is approaching the 

 zenith, and will reach there in a few seconds. If 

 the Zeppelin appears inclined — that is, unless one end 

 appears exactly over the other — there is no danger. 

 This is easily seen at a glance, but a plumb-line formed 

 by a stone attached to a string will show this with 

 certainty. The Zeppelin will always pass on the side 



