May II, 1916] 



NATURE 



223 



omit from the estimate June and July, when the 

 amount of artificial illumination required is very 

 small, and there is no real night, the 154 hours 

 are reduced to 93 ; and for one-third of this 

 number of days artisans who commence work at 

 6 a.m. will be given nearly an hour's additional 

 darkness. During the cold and dark morning 

 hours of September we shall expect definite com- 

 plaints from early workers as to the disadvantages 

 of the scheme to them. If their times are changed 

 to 7 a.m. instead of 6 a.m., they will have to leave 

 an hour later, and the whole purpose of the 

 measure will be defeated. 



In a letter to Sir Henry Norman, stating that 

 the Government intended to give facilities for the 

 discussion of his motion on daylight saving, Mr. 

 Herbert Samuel, the Home Secretary, said : " In 

 the House of Commons all interests are repre- 

 sented, and the Government would desire to 

 ascertain its opinion on this question." We sub- 

 mit that the House of Commons is not essen- 

 tially more competent to discuss the question 

 than it is that of the eccentricity of the earth's 

 orbit or of the obliquity of the ecliptic by which 

 differences in the lengths of days are caused. In 

 the debate in the House on Monday, few points of 

 scientific significance were mentioned, and the 

 matter was considered almost entirely from the 

 point of view of public convenience and the mar- 

 vellous economy — the amount of which varied with 

 a member's eloquence and calculations — to be 

 effected. It is urged that the views of men 

 of science on social legislation have no greater 

 authority than those of the general public; 

 but, on the other hand, we may be permitted 

 to reply that members of the House of Com- 

 mons, chambers of commerce, county and borough 

 councils, and like corporations do not under- 

 stand the scientific aspects of their social 

 measure, and that they, as well as enthu- 

 siastic writers in the daily Press, are attracted 

 by a specious plan without regard for its natural 

 significance. By scientific aspects we do not 

 mean the interests of men of science, but the 

 natural conditions of daylight and darkness in 

 different latitudes and longitudes of these islands, 

 and the consequences of a double time-standard. 

 There can be no true discussion of the daylight 

 saving scheme unless this side of the subject is 

 presented as well as the social and economic 

 arguments; and in Monday's debate in the House 

 of Commons, it was left out of account almost 

 entirely. 



The fact that Germany has introduced the day- 

 light saving scheme, and has naturally been fol- 

 lowed by Austria and Holland, is not a reason 

 why we should adopt it, but the reverse. It is 

 now announced that in Denmark, Sweden, and 

 Norway the same plan is to become effective on 

 May 15 and to extend to September 30, though 

 what advantages the lands of the midnight sun can 

 derive from a daylight saving scheme in summer 

 months are difficult to discover. Germany pro- 

 bably decreed the change of time because we 

 refused to do so, and for us to imitate her 

 NO. 2428, VOL. 97] 



now is not complimentary to our national in- 

 telligence. The case is different with France, 

 on account of our close relations with that 

 country and because the French time-standard 

 is that of the Greenwich meridian; but the com- 

 mittee of the French Senate appointed to examine 

 the proposal of the Chamber of Deputies has not 

 yet reported in favour of it, and the paper by M. 

 Lallemand of which a summary was given in 

 last week's Nature adduces cogent reasons 

 against it. As the adoption of Greenwich time 

 by our Ally was a manifestation of the entente 

 cordiale, it seems undesirable now to abandon this 

 common standard and use German time unless 

 France wishes to make the change with us. 



Most of the foregoing points, with others, were 

 mentioned in an article in Nature of April 27 re- 

 ferred to by Mr. H. W. M. Willett in a letter 

 which appears in our correspondence columns this 

 week. The intention of the article was to state 

 precisely some of the chief objections to the prin- 

 ciple of daylight saving by seasonal changes of the 

 national time-standard. Scientific men think 

 that this standard, like others, should be in- 

 variable ; advocates of the daylight saving scheme 

 wish the standard to oscillate and to believe that 

 II a.m. is noon for five months of the year. 

 Agricultural, engineering, and- building trades 

 adapt their hours to the sun, and workers on 

 tidal waters with the tides ; but as the tendency 

 of city life is towards lateness of rising and re- 

 tiring, and as habits are difficult to alter, they 

 are to be counteracted by putting forward the 

 hands of timepieces by one hour during the 

 summer months. 



Whether the change may be justified on the 

 grounds of social expediency is not a matter upon 

 which men of science can express an authoritative 

 opinion ; but the natural objections and difficulties 

 remain unaltered whatever legislative action is 

 taken. To the fact that for a large part of the 

 population of our islands the daylight saving 

 principle is unnecessary, Mr. Willett 's reply that 

 they would not suffer is scarcely sufficient justifi- 

 cation for the change. He offers no solution of 

 the difficulties as regards the differences of times 

 I in calendars and tide-tables in comparison with 

 the altered civil times, though in a maritime 

 nation such as ours this is a most important point. 

 As to artisans who have to be in the works at 

 6 a.m., and therefore to rise about 5 a.m., Mr. 

 Willett will find that when longitude is con- 

 sidered, as well as the period of dawn, many 

 thousands of workers will, throughout September, 

 on account of having to rise at what is 4 a.m. 

 Greenwich time, have to rise in the dark instead of 

 in daylight as hitherto. If fuel and light saved in 

 the evening are used in the morning, it is difficult 

 to see how substantial economy can be gained 

 in these cases. 



A scientific journal is not concerned with the 

 expediency of a measure, and the facts of Nature 

 are, of course, not affected by social legislation. 

 Whether men of science support or oppose the 

 daylight saving scheme may be of little conse- 



