I beg to move "That, in view especially of the economy in fuel and its transport that would be effected by shortening the hours of artificial lighting, this House would welcome a measure for the advancement of clock time by one hour during the summer months of this year."

I am more than ever conscious, after eight years' advocacy of the course it proposes, that the proposal suffers from two great disadvantages. In the first place, it is too simple. To believe that great benefit can be conferred upon many millions of people, and an economy of millions of pounds secured, merely by putting the hand of the clock forward an hour, seems to those who have not given some careful thought to the matter to exhibit a ludicrous disproportion between effect and cause. They are as unwilling to be cured by a simple expedient of their wasteful use of daylight hours as was Naaman of his leprosy. "If the prophet had bid them do some great thing" they would have been more ready to obey. As the Syrian scorned the Jordan, so they scorn the hour-hand of the clock. In the second place, this simple proposal lends itself almost irresistibly to what the French call "la blague." Nothing is easier than to poke fun at it. All the professional wits of the French Press have revelled in it for a month. M. Painleveé, the eminent scientist, who as Minister of Public Instruction and of Inventions has officially championed the reform, and to whom its ultimate success in France will be chiefly due, is known as the modern Joshua. He has attempted to arrest the steeds of the chariot of Phœbus. In fact, the French wits have gravely discussed whether, on the whole, we should be better with or without the contents of the particular hour he proposes to steal. They have declared the proposal to alter our social habits by altering the clock to be as absurd as to try to change the weather by changing the barometer. We have had something of the same kind here. I remember the last time I spoke on this subject in this House, seven years ago, a friend of mine asked me the conundrum, What would twelve o'clock be—would it be eleven o'clock or one o'clock? Another hon. Member asked me if I had ever milked a cow. An agricultural witness indignantly asked us at the Select Committee whether we really expected him to go to bed with the chickens.

The very simplicity of the proposal constitutes its most attractive feature to those who have once grasped it. Certainly the tragic necessities of this year make any kind of fun on the subject distasteful to us all. Therefore we can approach the matter once more with entire seriousness, with a new and irresistible argument in its favour, and, this time, as it would appear, with an almost unanimous public support. The proposal is indeed very simple, but appreciation of it is hampered for many people by curious views about time in general. Therefore I would like to say a few words about time. Many people appear to regard time—I use the word in its horological and not in its metaphysical sense—and our method of reckoning it, as something peculiarly sacred, something irrevocably fixed in the order of things. Based as it is upon the heavenly bodies, it seems to them to possess an almost semi-divine sanction. I feel sure there are many worthy people who regard any proposal to tamper, as they say, with the hands of the clock as savouring of irreverence. Even the Prime Minister the other day seemed to suggest that there was something rather noxious about Central European Time, which, by the way, has been changed even since he spoke. I submit that there is no such thing as time in the sense in which I have defined the word; at least, I have come across no definition of it. If you ask an astronomer what is time he will probably reply, "It depends upon what time you mean. Do you mean sidereal time, or mean solar time, or apparent solar time, or Irish time, or Greenwich civil time, or legal time, or lighting-up time, or closing time, or what?" One of these times depends upon the hour-angle of the vernal equinox, another upon the sundial, another upon the longitude of Dublin, another upon the Statute Book, another, and the most familiar, upon an astronomer's fairy tale. Some hon. Member may be inclined to say, "None of your subtleties. What I mean by time is the system by which it is twelve o'clock when the sun is over the meridian of Greenwich." I am not trying to be subtle. I am trying, perhaps not with success, to be simple; but, as a matter of fact, there is no such system.

There is no accepted time system by which it is twelve o'clock when the sun is over the meridian of Greenwich, nor even when it appears to be over the meridian of Greenwich. As a matter of fact, the sun has an apparent diurnal irregular eastward movement, with the result that solar time constantly fluctuates, and you cannot fix a regular noon by its appearance over the meridian of Greenwich. Therefore, astronomers have adopted the clever device of inventing an imaginary sun, moving in an imaginary manner, whose wholly imaginary motion coincides with the celestial equator, and from the calculated movements of this imaginary luminary they have devised a very convenient but wholly conventional time, which they call mean solar time, and which we know as Greenwich mean time. Twelve o'clock by Greenwich time is mean noon, and that is what we set our clocks by. But this, again, is only a convention, because Greenwich Mean Time, used as we use it from the North Foreland to Land's End, may be locally wrong by something like three-quarters of an hour. I would like to add, as I may be thought to be speaking rather flippantly of Greenwich Mean Time for the purpose of illustrating my argument, that, of course, the calculations upon which Greenwich mean time is based are of the most complex, the most refined and the most beautiful character, and constitute, as the world recognises, a masterpiece of astronomy and mathematics. Having said that, I hope I shall not be misunderstood when I say that of sidereal time we must speak with the greatest respect, for it is, except for a negligible wobble of the earth on its axis, an accurate, scientific, and regular reckoning. But mean solar time, certainly the hours of it, we may treat with familiarity because we have made it ourselves. I fear that all this may possibly have seemed a wilful digression from the subject, but it is not really so. It is really essential for us to grasp the fact that time, in our ordinary sense—that is, the position of the hands of our clocks—is only a convenient compromise, except for astronomers, and they take good care to base their time upon an immutable star and not upon the irregular sun. Our clock time is largely a matter of social convenience, with a general reference to the periods of daylight and darkness. When a man, looks at his watch and sees that it denotes twelve o'clock, what does that mean to him? All his life he has never given a thought to meridians, or equinoxes, or suns, real or imaginary. What he thinks is that the morning is nearly gone, and that in one hour it will be lunch time, that he has a train to catch, or that he has an appointment with his dentist, or some practical matter of that kind. Clock time, in a word, controls the time-relations of a man with his fellow men, and that fact is the justification of the action proposed in this Motion. If the hands of all clocks are moved simultaneously, the time-relations of men in our society remain unaltered.

Therefore—and this is the conclusion of my argument—we are free to consider any other result that follows the simultaneous alteration of the hour hands of all our clocks. It is obvious to everybody that between five and six o'clock on a summer morning, when the sunlight is exquisite, the temperature is delicious, and the whole earth is at its sweetest, the vast majority of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom are asleep behind drawn curtains. At the other end of the day they are again behind drawn curtains, but they are burning artificial light. Could there be a more wasteful, more unhygienic, more senseless proceeding? The proposal before us is on Saturday night at the beginning of summer to advance the hour-hand of the clock by one hour, and on another Saturday night at the end of the summer to put it back again—that is, we should add one hour of daylight to our working time, and correspondingly transfer one hour of darkness to our sleeping time. That is, it would be as light at 9.30 at night as it is now at 8.30. Actually it would be done in this way, if the House sees fit to accept this Motion and the Government act on it: Next Sunday morning, or the Sunday morning after it—the method and time depend entirely on the Government—all public clocks, all railway and all post-office clocks when they reach 1 a.m. will be moved to 2 a.m., and when we wind our watches on going to bed we shall similarly advance them one hour.

Suppose we do not?

If the right hon. Baronet does not, then he will simply find himself out of gear with the whole human machine of which he is a distinguished part. What will be the result? We shall have one hour's less sleep that night. That will probably be no great matter, as most of us sleep too much in any event. The trains then running, that is between 1 and 2 p.m. on Sunday morning, unless they increase their speed, will arrive one hour late. On the corresponding night in September we shall have one hour's extra sleep, and the trains running, unless they slow down, will arrive one hour early. Otherwise we should find no difference whatever whenever we get up, but instead of drawing blinds and lighting gas at eight o'clock we should find it light until nine. Everything else will be the same. The butcher, the baker, the milkman, the postman, will all come at the same hour as now. The trains will run at the same hour. Not a figure in Bradshaw will have to be altered. Banks and offices will open and close at the same hours as now. If this was done during the night without our knowledge, in all probability we should know nothing whatever of it during the day until the usual time of nightfall arrived, when we should say, "How light the evenings are becoming."

Is there anyone of us who has not been struck by the pathetic sight of men, boys, and girls hurrying from works and mills to get a little play while daylight lasts, struggling for their meagre recreation against the fading light? This simple change will give millions of workers an additional hour's daylight every day—that is 130 hours more daylight during the summer months, or the equivalent of sixteen eight-hour days. Surely the health, the refreshment, the happiness of such a gift cannot be overestimated! It will substitute outdoor for indoor life during that time. It will take an hour off the frequentation of the public-houses. Indeed, it will do more than that, for a great many of the workers will be in their gardens or allotments or in the cricket field, or on bicycles, until it is dark and the time has come for them to go home to supper and to bed. There will be another advantage peculiar to this year. We have all, of course, 'been struck by the large number of street accidents in London, owing to the necessary darkening of the streets. That extra hour's daylight during the busiest hour possible of the evening will save scores of lives in London during the coming months. It is unusual in this world to get anything for nothing. Therefore the question naturally arises, What is to be the cost of this great gift? It will be very much less than nothing. It will be one hour less of artificial lighting to pay for, an hour less a day of candle-light, gas, oil, or electricity. That is, the cost of seven hours' lighting saved to every family every week, and every railway company, every tramway company and every municipality and every mill and works which is this year accustomed to work late. Evidence was given that the' London County Council tramways would save £10,000 a year. The general manager of the London and North-Western Railway Company stated that the railways would save £92,000 a year. The chairman of the-Sheffield Gas Company said that the-people of Sheffield would save £12,000 on-their gas during the summer months. A very careful and detailed estimate was-made according to which the savings of our whole country would be £2,500,000.

I do not present these figures with any claim to accuracy because only experience-can show what the economy will be, but it will certainly be great. If this proposal had been adopted eight years ago extra daylight amounting to 154 eight-hour days would have been secured, and something like £20,000,000 of fuel would have been saved which has simply been wasted. The greater part of artificial light, of course, is derived from coal. We are under the most urgent necessity this year of economising not only in coal but in its transport. The gas and electric lighting companies were recently ordered by the Board of Trade to secure 10 per cent reduction in their output. I do not know how they were expected to do that, but the adoption of this proposal would give-them instantly and automatically a much greater reduction than 10 per cent. If there were no other argument for the advancement of the clock than this certain economy, that argument, I submit to the House, would be conclusive this year. We are called upon to husband our national resources. This is a measure of direct efficiency, and it will be an Act, if adopted, of imperative patriotism. It is difficult to understand how anyone reading the striking letter of the Home Secretary—and let me say here that this measure, if it is adopted this year, will be due, more than to any other man, to the energy and courage of my right hon. Friend—can vote against this measure. The economy necessarily carries the social benefit with it, but, all other aspects apart, this measure is essential to our best national efforts this year. Next year, when we may have peace, all the results-will be on record to guide us for the future.

The opposition to this measure is negligible; in fact, some organs of public opinion, which were not very much in favour of it before, are convinced that they have always been amongst its warmest friends. In normal times there would have been certain difficulties connected with Continental mails and with Stock Exchange operations with New York. Those of us who are in favour of this measure think that neither of those objections is important, but they are practically non-existent this year. Some objection is taken on behalf of the agricultural interest. This will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), who will second this Motion, and who will, of course, speak upon the matter with far greater competence than I could. With regard to navigators, to whom reference has been made by occasional opponents, they will be affected in no way whatever. When they are at sea they will do precisely as they do now. When they are in port they will adjust their ships' clocks to local time, as they always have been in the habit of doing. But there is one point only to which I will venture to draw special attention, though I am sure it will not escape for a moment the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. There may be a danger, there is a danger, that certain classes of employers, I should think few in number, may take advantage of this extra hour of daylight to get an extra hour's work out of their employés. Of course organised labour is well able to protect itself in that matter, but steps must be taken to safeguard unorganised labour from the action of unscrupulous employers, if such are to be found. I know of no other objections really worth considering, though there are still people, whose intelligence in other matters is trustworthy, who say, "If you want to get up earlier, why don't you do so? Why do you want the Government to make you get up?" I hesitate even to formally answer such an objection. It is obviously useless for the individual to alter his time-relations with his fellows unless at the same time they alter their time-relations with him. It is useless for a man to begin his own day earlier unless the milkman, and the baker, and the postman will call earlier, trains run earlier, and his office and bank and other people's offices open earlier. As Lord Dundreary sagely observed, "A bird cannot go into a corner and flock all by himself."

On the other hand, few proposals ever had such influential and widespread support. I will not weary the House with a long list, but I should like to mention that this proposal has the support of the Central Committee for the Disposal of Coal. The General Conference of Railway Managers support it. I have just had a communication from the National Chamber of Trade, who support it. The measure has also the support of five county councils, 746 city corporations and town and district councils, including great cities like Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Cardiff, Swansea, Dublin, and Belfast; the Company of Merchants of the City of Edinburgh, the Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland, the Conference of the Urban District Councils of England and Wales, and eighty-eight chambers of commerce. The Associated Chambers of Commerce have passed resolutions in its favour for eight consecutive years. The measure also has the support of fifty-nine trade unions, forty-seven branches of the Shop Assistants' Union, and over 400 business, political, and other associations. The International Chambers of Commerce at Paris in 1914, representing thirty-one countries, and 642 organisations, also gave it their support. Public meetings of the citizens of London, the Lord Mayor presiding, have passed during these years resolutions in support of the measure. Members will have noticed the almost unanimous support of the Press during the past week. I have received a large number of letters, all, with one single exception, strongly in favour of it. Mrs. Illingworth tells me of one boarding-house which saved £7 last summer by adopting this plan. Another writer says: I am sure that if you are successful you will earn the gratitude of thousands who, like myself, are shut up in shop or office all day. I have a number of communications of that character. Here is one from a gentleman who says that he himself can alter 5,000 clocks simply by adjusting about 100 master clocks. Another correspondent says: With all my heart I wish yon success on Monday. To tens of thousands who, like myself, cannot leave business till 8 p.m. or later, an extra hour of daylight at the close of the day would prove to be a great privilege indeed, and would add years to our lives, to say nothing of financial gains that would accrue. This telegram was put into my hands this afternoon: Swansea and District Grocers' Association heartily support proposed Daylight Saving Bill, and trust same will be passed to-day.—WEST, President. Another telegram is: South Wales Council, representing 1,200 grocers, in favour of Daylight Saving Bill.—PERKINS, Secretary. A further telegram from Hull is as follows: National Chamber of Trade, in annual conference heartily and unanimously support Daylight Saving.—NICHOLSON, Secretary. There is one letter only which I desire to read in full to the House, as it appears to me one of the most instructive and weighty utterances I have seen on this subject. I have not the pleasure of knowing the writer personally. It is as follows:

"University Observatory,

Oxford.

Dear Sir Henry Norman,

A suggestion has reached me (from Professor A. M. Worthington, F.R.S.) that most of the objections urged by scientific men against 'Daylight Saving' would be met by the adoption of a new term 'Greenwich State Time' (G.S.T.), as distinguished from Greenwich Mean Time, or Civil Time (G.M.T. or G.C.T.), both of which have been used in other connections. I think the suggestion well worthy your consideration."

Here is a very important part of the letter:

"Astronomers as such (I have always contended) have little concern in the matter. Of the two hands of the clock the minute (and second) hand is very distinctly a concern of theirs, and it would be grievous to interfere with it; but the other hand belongs to the public and may be regulated to suit their convenience, as in the system of hourly changes in the United States.

It should always be remembered that meterologists will suffer, as it is important for them to have certain information collected at hours regulated by the sun himself. But they will have, at most, a little extra trouble, which ought not to outweigh the public convenience.

With good wishes,

Yours very truly,

H. H. TURNER. F.R.S.,

Savilian Professor of Astronomy."

4.0 P.M.

I think after that letter, and I have a letter to the same effect from Professor Worthington, and remembering the support of Professor Rambaut and the late Sir Robert Ball, we need not trouble further over the so-called scientific objections. The situation as regards the advance of clock time in other countries is of importance. Unhappily our enemies have been quicker than ourselves to realise the great economy thus afforded. The advancement of clock time has been in operation in Germany, in Austria, and in Hungary since 1st May. It was stated in the discussions in the Bundesrath that an annual saving—and I am, of course, merely quoting the figures—of a sum approaching £8,000,000 would be made in Germany, and that a saving of a sum approaching £4,000,000 would be made in Austria. It would be equally amazing and regrettable if a measure of reform and economy born in this country and reborn in France should profit only our enemies. As we have seen in the newspapers, daylight saving, or the advancement of clock time, as I prefer to call it, has been adopted in Holland and with the most striking success. Two letters on the subject have recently appeared in the Press. A correspondent of the "Daily News" writes: Holland has adopted summer time. The Government has temporarily robbed us of an hour that nobody has missed, and has given everyone an hour's leisure that everyone has enjoyed. While some of you in England are discussing learnedly whether another hour's sunshine in your working day is good or bad for your vitality we, in Holland, are not bothering one whit about the theories, we are just enjoying the blessings and wondering why they were never realised before. The Dutch Parliament passed the Bill without debate; there will be a very big one if anyone tried to cancel it next year. There was a most interesting letter to the same effect from the Rotterdam correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph." As regards France, the situation is that the Bill was passed by the Chamber of Deputies and went up to the Senate, which rose on the very day it was received and before the case for it could be stated there. I have, of course, no authority whatever to make any statement on this matter, but I have had the opportunity of discussing it frequently with those in France most influentially concerned, and I have not the slightest hesitation in expressing the confident opinion, and in fact regarding it to all intents and purposes as a certainty, that the French Government will adopt it if we do. In that case it is very probable, and I speak with some grounds, that it would be adopted also in Italy, where eminent men are also strongly urging it in the public Press—such men, for instance, as the President of the Society of Italian Civil Engineers. In that case Switzerland would certainly hardly fail to follow suit, as it would be surrounded by countries which had made this change. I venture specially to commend this Motion to the House, because upon the decision of the House to-day depends this great extension.

Nobody can speak of daylight saving on the eve, as I hope it may be, of its triumph, without a word of tribute to the memory of the late Mr. William Willett. It was he who originally conceived the idea. He gave years of his life and munificently of his means to the advocacy of it. He was wonderful in his seizure of every opportunity, great or small. No criticism daunted him, no defeat dismayed him. Apart from his own great business, he lived for daylight saving. I have never known a more untiring, a more persistent, a more genial, a more disinterested advocate. Unhappily he is no longer with us, though his son, upon whom his mantle has not unworthily fallen, is listening to our Debate to-day. I venture to think that the time will come when the workers of this country will desire to erect to William Willett, in grateful memory, a statue on some peak where it will be gilded by the first rays of an April sunrise—one hour in advance of Greenwich Mean Time. I beg to move.

I beg to second the Motion. With no part of the very able speech in which this Motion has been moved do I find myself in more complete agreement than that in which the senior Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman) dealt with this matter as a war measure and as one deserving of immediate attention in view of the public economies involved. All the arguments against such a proposal which were relevant in times of peace have either disappeared entirely, gone over to the opposite side, or almost ceased to have any validity whatever. Although I am sure the House would not have missed a single word of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, we may well bear in mind that this Motion is to be the forerunrrer in all probability of an emergency Bill, and that the advantages of the proposal which is before the House have been so ably stated from the scientific and every other point of view that the House would be well advised, in view of the national emergency and of the date, 8th May, which is already some eighteen days later than that on which really this measure ought to have come into operation, to pass this Resolution with a very brief Debate. I am going to deal with the agricultural side of the question, but I feel sure I shall only need to do so very briefly. I should like first to refer to one or two of the arguments which were not perhaps fully covered in the speech we have just heard.

The right hon. Gentleman told us of some of the savings which would be effected. It may be of interest to know what the estimated savings will be in typical retail businesses, from which perhaps one can get an idea of the magnitude of the advantages in this essential commodity of light, which of course is the product of coal which we are bound to save. Messrs. Hitchcock and Williams, of St. Paul's Churchyard, estimate an annual saving of £347; Messrs. D. H. Evans, of Oxford Street, £200 per year; and Harrods' Stores from £600 to £700 per year. Those are but three retail businesses in one city in this country, and those are the savings in coal, for that is what it comes to, which can be effected. I noticed that in the column next to the one in which the "Times" reported the letter of the Home Secretary which has been referred to, we find this Order from the Board of Trade, "Coal for lighting purposes must be reduced by 10 per cent." If we bear in mind that coal is the most important matter for us to economise in and that a vast proportion of the cost of the coal before it is ever turned into light is represented by the traffic charge over our railways, and that to do anything to relieve the congestion of the railways at this time is the most essential war measure which we possibly can adopt, then I really do not think that on general grounds there is any necessity for further argument. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn referred to the possibility of this meaning an extension of an hour at some of our works. I do not really believe there is any probability of such a result accruing in any industry whatever. Let the House just consider what the present conditions are. They are that all available labour, both male and female, in the vast majority of cases is concentrated upon work connected with the War. With that male and female labour alike the hours that are being worked are ungrudgingly the most that everyone can stand. What is proposed by this measure is to give an hour's additional daylight at the end of the working day so that there may be some time left to cultivate the allotments, the gardens in the vicinity of our towns, thus producing food right on the spot without cost of carriage and where it is most available for use in every household. That value alone as an agricultural measure is one well deserving of the consideration of the House.

I am aware that two of the strongest advocates of the interests of agriculture in this House, namely, the hon. Member for the Rye Division of Sussex (Captain Courthope) and the hon. Member for the Wilton Division of Wiltshire (Captain Bathurst) are absent from this Debate on account of military duties they have undertaken. I therefore took the opportunity, so that their views of the question should not be unpresented, to look up the speech the hon. Member for the Rye Division made in seconding the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill in 1909. I find that the arguments which he relied upon are easily relegated into four categories. First of all he dealt with the question of milk, and said: All the big dairy associations say that they will find it absolutely impossible in the majority of cases to provide the towns with fresh milk nearer sunrise than at present. Of course, it would not really matter to us if the townspeople chose to drink last night's milk at breakfast, but it is quite clear, according to the definitely expressed view of daily farmers, that fresh milk cannot be supplied at an earlier hour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1909, col. 1738, Vol. I.] I do not believe that the hon. Member if he were here to-day would put his argument in exactly the same form. He argued perfectly correctly with regard to the small towns all over the country, where it is possible to consume at breakfast milk that has been given by the cow that morning. But I took occasion this morning to see the managing director of a leading dairy company, so as to be able to inform the House what are the actual circumstances with regard to the delivery of milk in London. I found, as I had expected, that the bulk of the morning milk arrives in London at 10.30 or 11 o'clock. It has to be pasteurised and re-cooled, a short process not occupying more than about twenty minutes, and it leaves the dairy for the afternoon delivery between 12 and 1 o'clock. Some farmers now, owing to the shortage of labour and of horses, are delivering their milk only once a day—in the morning. The delivery of milk for breakfast goes out from the dairy at from 5.30 to 6.30, and that is the milk taken from the cow the evening before. Therefore there is no question of drinking stale milk, as the hon. Member called it, because that is what we do now. We do not get our milk at less than about twelve hours after it leaves the cow.

With regard to the farmer's difficulty, there are various matters connected with the milk question which are quite uninfluenced by the proposal before the House. One of the difficulties the farmer has is that the ordinary yield of milk by a cow is about as twelve to eight in the morning as compared with the afternoon. Therefore, if we should milk an hour earlier in the morning, and at the present hour of the clock in the afternoon, we should shorten the night and lengthen the day. That would tend to equalise the yield of milk, and produce a very distinct benefit. There are interesting questions connected with the butter fat; according to law it must be above 3 per cent., and there is a great tendency in the Shorthorn breeds to run almost short of the 3 per cent, in the morning yield of milk. These questions are more suitable for a meeting of agriculturists, and I mention them now only because they are appropriate to the Bill for this reason: All these questions are quite unaffected by this proposed change. It might induce several changes which would be a positive advantage from the agricultural point of view, but it cannot possibly affect the farmers so far as any of the real problems of the milk trade are concerned. The hon. Member for Rye dealt also with the question of reaping and binding machines. He rather twitted my hon. Friend with the fact that he was not a farmer on a large scale who had to use these essential machines on a large farm. He went on to say: These machines are now used on a great number of farms, and anyone who has seen the machine used knows that it will not work unless the straw is dry, and it is the same with regard to grass. Immediately afterwards, the hon. Member destroyed that argument entirely by saying, with regard to harvesting operations: They cannot begin until the hay or straw is dry, and they work as long as there is light. It would be impossible for them to finish work relatively an hour later than all the rest of the community engaged in other pursuits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1909, col. 1739, Vol. I.] The hon. Member recognised, as all agriculturists must do, that harvesting operations are conducted now by the sun, and not by the clock. Nobody imagines that a farmer goes forth, pulls his watch out of his fob, and says, "It is now ten o'clock in the morning. I must begin to cart the corn." He would not think of doing such a thing. He would go and feel some of the shocks, and say, "The dew is off this corn; I can now let the wagons start loading." That has always been the practice, and sound agriculture can be conducted on no other lines. It will not matter twopence whether the clock says one time or another. Indeed, the hon. Member for Rye went further, and said as an argument against the Bill: They (the agricultural labourers) take their time by the sun, and this Bill would take away their only timepiece. I could not follow his argument there, except in the case of an agricultural labourer who, living in the meridian of Greenwich, is in the habit of looking up and, when he sees the sun full over him, says, "It is now twelve o'clock" But if he happens to live a little way to the east of Penzance he will be twenty-three minutes wrong now by Greenwich time. Therefore he cannot be in the habit of so accurately calculating his time by the exact position of the sun at noon. In any case, I am sure that he is sufficiently intelligent to be able to understand in a very little while that when the sun says eleven o'clock it is time to unhitch and take his lunch, instead of when the sun says twelve o'clock, as at present. The hon. Member for Rye also pointed out that in connection with many local live-stock markets you have to drive the stock a good many miles to reach the market. That means starting as soon as it is light, and the hon. Member said that you could not, without grave inconvenience, start earlier. What does that involve? At the very worst those who control the local market would have to say, "In view of the fact that the Government have altered the time, we think that the market, instead of starting at twelve, or one o'clock, or whatever it may be, had better start an hour later by the clock." That would not be a very serious alteration, especially bearing in mind that the agricultural population, important as they are, particularly in wartime, are only about 8 per cent, as compared with all the town-dwellers in the country. Really we cannot allow an argument of that sort to outweigh this enormous national advantage.

I should like to say a word upon the "Do it yourself" argument. In the Debate in 1909 the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. Dundas White) was very strong on this point, and referred to the case of Messrs. Crosfield of Warrington who had done it for themselves. He quoted what Messrs. Crosfield wrote as to the great advantage that had accrued to the firm from altering the clock by half an hour, and he said: That is open to every other firm and every other employer to do. If they wish to encourage earlier rising in that way it can be done voluntarily. It needs no compulsion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1909, col. 1754, Vol. I.] Unfortunately for that argument, and fortunately for the proposal that I am seconding, this particular firm, finding the half hour was a good thing, tried to extend it to the one hour as proposed by this Resolution, and Mr. Willett quotes their experience. He says: I adduce the experience of Messrs. Joseph Crosfield and Sons, Limited, of Warrington, who state that having opened and closed their offices half an hour earlier and finding that the change had benefited the health of their staff, and that the work done showed an improvement, they considered the possibility of making a further altera- tion in the same direction, but found that owing: to difficulties in regard to dinner-hour and train service it was impossible. That is one more of those arguments which have been used in one direction and now tell in exactly the opposite direction. It shows that the Mover of the Resolution is absolutely right in saying that it is quite impossible in this matter to do anything unless we all act together. As Mr. Willett says in his memorandum: It is futile to say that these advantages can be secured by early rising. The exceptional exercise of this virtue usually calls forth more sarcasm than admiration or imitation. Leisure must follow, not precede, work, and earlier business hours are quite unattainable. The success of the proposed change entirely depends upon its initiation by legislative action. If that be true with regard to an ordinary peace time measure, it must be true in war. Even if there are some slight inconveniences which may be experienced by a small section of the community in adjusting themselves to something which is for the general good, for the public economy, and for the better conduct of the War, surely they are a very small matter compared with the great question involved in this proposal—the question of adopting; the change initiated in this country by Mr. Willett's ingenuity and foresight, and which has been already adopted by the enemies to whom we are opposed. I do not think it is very creditable to this country that long after Mr. Willett's proposal was put before the country here he took steps to bring it forward in Germany, and they so rapidly took it up there, that when it is a question of war, a question of life and death, when it is important to save every pound, Germany has had the start of us, and this Resolution can now be best argued in this House as being something which the enemy have already adopted. I am sorry that it is so. Some of us called the attention of the Government to the matter when there was still time to have made the whole saving possible in the year. On the 17th February I asked the Prime Minister whether he could see his way to move in this matter, and he said that he could not introduce legislation on "this contentious subject." I close with that. I only hope that the result of this Debate will be to show that we might have adopted this change before, and not after, our enemies; that it is not contentious; and that the Government will argue, as I believe the Home Secretary will do, that it is for the good of the country and for the better prosecution of the War that the proposal should be adopted.

The hon. Baronet who moved this Motion spent the first part of his interesting speech in giving us a scientific lecture. I do not propose to follow him on those lines. He told us, I think, that the earth wobbled on its axis, and that owing to that wobbling a certain alteration in time took place. That may or may not be so. I am prepared to accept the statement of the hon. Baronet, but I do not think that that has really anything whatever to do with the question now before us. As my hon. Friend (Mr. Peto) admitted, this is an extremely contentious and controversial subject, and I think it ought not to be brought on at a time like the present unless strong reasons can be adduced that the passing of the Resolution will do something to accelerate the War, and aid our country in carrying on that war. I therefore propose to deal only with the practical considerations which were stated by the hon. Baronet who introduced the Resolution. Before dealing with them I would like to say one or two words in regard to the agricultural position which was not dealt with by the hon. Baronet, who left it to my hon. Friend below the Gangway. In my view this alteration would deal a very serious blow to the farmers.

Hear, hear!

And it would do so at a time when it is very difficult for farmers to carry on their work and to obtain the necessary labour to get their work done. Let me first state the case of the dairy farmers and explain the question as it exists at the present moment in my own county of Wiltshire. The hon. Member (Mr. Peto) represents one of the Divisions. In my part of Wiltshire, a large part of which is considerably concerned in dairy farming, the milkers commence at five o'clock in the morning. This means getting up at half-past four. It cannot be doubted that getting up all the year round at half-past four is an arduous and hard task. For the greater part of the year these men get up in the dark. That is not a very pleasant thing to do. But during the summer, or at any rate during a greater part of the summer, they have the advantage of getting up more or less in the light. My hon. Friend below the Gangway and the hon. Baronet say, "Oh, no, you are not to do that; you are to get up practically all the year round in the dark." [An HON. MEMBER: "NO!"] I beg pardon. They will have to get up at three-thirty instead of half-past four, and start milking at four o'clock instead of five. In our part of the world this has really nothing to do with the delivery of the morning milk for consumers to drink, because-the greater part of our milk comes to London, or goes to some other towns, though some of it goes to Slough. You: could not get up later or begin milking-later than five or you would not catch the train. You are going to put the trains an hour earlier, and, therefore, these men will have to get up an hour earlier to do their milking. But you cannot alter the milk trade or the allied trades, and the result will be that these people will have to get up in the dark all the year round instead of in the dark only a portion of the year.

We come next to the question of the harvest. As everyone knows, after you have cut your grass, you cannot carry your hay when the dew is on it. At the present moment, if you are farming a mixed farm, as I am farming one myself—I do not do any milk except for my own house and the rearing of calves—it is very difficult to know on a damp morning in the hay harvest what to do with the men before the dew is off the grass. You will have another hour in which the men can do nothing. You may by an Act of Parliament alter the clock, but you cannot alter nature, and the dew will not go off an hour sooner because you have altered your clocks. It will remain on just the same, and there will be an hour wasted, an hour which has to be paid for by the farmer. It is quite true that in harvest time overtime is worked. I would point out to the hon. Baronet that the men, having got up an hour earlier than usual, and having done nothing, something may be given them to do, at five or four o'clock, when they leave off work, when they will be more tired than if they had got up later. An hour in the evening will be lost. Anybody conversant at all with agriculture knows that this is especially the time for carrying the hay. The work will be done by tired men. They will not be able to put as much energy into their work as they would have done if they had got up an hour later. The same applies to the corn harvest, with the possible exception of wheat. My hon. Friend behind me (Sir J. Spear) is thoroughly conversant with agriculture, and I think he will bear me out when I say, though you cannot carry oats and barley if they are wet, it does not so much matter for wheat, even if it is a little damp, if you are not going to thresh it immediately. Both barley and oats, however, have to be carried when dry, and you cannot use the binder for either wheat, barley, or oats when the straw is wet. Therefore, again during the corn harvest, the same objection will apply that I have just mentioned in regard to the hay harvest. From the point of view of the farmer, nothing could be worse than this particular measure, and that at a time when it is extremely difficult to obtain labour. It is not easy now to get milkers on account of the hard life. If you are going to make it harder by making them get up in the dark all the year round the result will be that the farmers will find that it will be more difficult than before to obtain the labour they need.

What was the argument brought forward by the hon. Baronet in justification of his statement that money was going to be saved by this measure. He said that there would not be so much artificial light used, and then, almost in the same breath, he went on to use the argument which was advanced in the old days, that there would be an hour extra for amusements. If you have an hour extra for amusements it means you go to bed at the same time as now, and therefore you will have to burn just as much artificial light as now. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO!"] Certainly; you get up an hour earlier, and if you go to bed at the same time you save an hour's artificial light, but you would not have the extra hour for amusements, and if you have the extra hour for amusements then you will have to go to bed later.

No!

My hon. Friend says "No!" I do not agree with him. I think he will find that people will not go to bed in the light. As a matter of fact, the only result will be that people will, I presume, get up earlier if this Resolution is passed, and that they will not go to bed any earlier at all. I am only now talking about private people—private in the sense that they are private after they have finished their work. When, however, you come to deal with industries, banks, shops, and so on, in the summer, they are all closed now before eight o'clock. There will be no saving for them. If you go further to manufactories, undertakings of that sort, and large works, which work double shifts, they will go on working two shifts as before. Munition works will go on working at night, and all these will use just as much light as they do now. I forget whether it was my hon. Friend below the Gangway or the hon. Baronet who said that Harrods, I think it was, or some particular store, reckoned that they would save £300.

Six hundred.

Well, Harrods, so far as I know, close now at six o'clock, and how can they save if they close in the summer at six? The question of railways has been alluded to. I made some inquiries on Thursday from the office of the Great Northern Railway, of which I am a director. I asked our general manager what really had taken place. The railways at the present time have an executive consisting of eight general managers, and the general manager of the Great Northern Railway is one of those eight. We had heard nothing of this at the board, and I inquired what really had taken place. According to the statement of the general manager, all that has taken place has been that the eight general managers have stated that, under present circumstances, they would not be affected one way or the other by this proposal. That is the information given to me last Thursday. The general manager tells me they have expressed no opinion as a body—I do not know what individuals may have said—upon the merits of the proposed scheme. All they have said is that, so far as they are concerned, they do not think they will be injured by this particular measure.

I do not know whether the right hon. Baronet wanted an answer to the question he put to me a moment ago as to how Messrs Harrods would save if they closed now at six or seven. The reply is that the work of a great store does not end when the shutters go up, any more than does the work of a bank after the public are shut out.

The right hon. Baronet refers to the testimony of the managing director of Harrods store. I beg to put it in a few lines before him.

I am extremely obliged to the hon. Baronet, but what I read on the Paper he has given me bears out what I said. A change is advocated, not because it is going to save any money, but because it is going to give additional recreation to certain people. That is the argument which was used by the late Mr. Lyttelton. I remember I had a conversation with him upon this subject when I was sitting on the bench behind and he was sitting on this Front Bench. He had given me a promise to vote against the proposal when it was introduced on a previous occasion. Suddenly someone said, "Oh, a place like Harrods will be closed an hour earlier and there will be an hour extra of daylight in which the shop assistants can go and play cricket." Whereupon Mr. Lyttelton turned to me and said, "I am sorry, my dear fellow, but if they are going to be able to play cricket I must vote against you." And he did That, actually, in other words, is what the director of Harrods stores says: They are not able on summer evenings to make use of the fourteen-acre recreation ground placed at their disposal; in fact, it is only on Saturday afternoons they can do so. If they could get an hour added daily to that which they now enjoy, there is hardly one evening in the week in summer in which they would not get sufficient time to take advantage of the athletic club and grounds. What about the lighting of the athletic club and ground? If the assistants stayed after their play to have tea or other refreshments or to discuss matters with their friends? This may be a very excellent reason for endeavouring to give extra recreation, but I venture to say there is nothing in it showing that there will be any saving whatever to Harrods store, or of any other similar business which closes at six o'clock or even later in the evening.

There is another point with regard to agriculture. At the present moment agricultural labourers have their dinner between twelve and one, and that is the warmest time of the day; therefore, during the greatest heat of the day they are able to have a rest and go to their own cottages, if the work is near, or to sit under a shady tree and have their dinner. Now, you are going to make for the future the hottest hour of the day as the hour in which they are to work. I do not think that is an advantage either for horses or for men. There was an extremely interesting letter in the "Times" a day or two ago from Mr. Arthur Hinks, in which he pointed out: If we are to be dishonest with the clock, let us at any rate make the change honestly. The advocates of daylight saving are adept in securing the consent of one body of opinion on the ground that some other body has adopted it with enthusiasm. Public opinion in Paris has just lately been misled by the false statement that Canada and Australia have already made the change. We are told, in our turn, that the French have adopted it; whereas, in fact, it is still under examination by a Committee of the Senate, who are expected to reject it. The change to standard time at the Cape years ago was hailed as a beneficial application of the principle with which it had nothing whatever to do; and any attempt to begin work earlier in the day is acclaimed as a justification, not as a refutation, of the need of tampering with the clock, a childish expedient in time of peace, as it seems to many of us, and a very dangerous thing to do in war, when a mistake of an hour might be fatal. It is very difficult, of course, to tell exactly what effect a change of this sort would have, but I do not believe myself that it would save any appreciable amount of money or appreciable amount of coal. I believe that you cannot change the habits of the people. I believe that the real reason for the introduction of this Motion is, and I claim that the whole speech of the hon. Baronet was devoted to showing, that an extra hour would be gained for recreation. I am not sure that we ought to think so much about recreation at the present moment. We have got to deal with a very serious situation, and we should turn our minds and thoughts to dealing with that, and not try to take advantage of it to gain extra hours of recreation. It may be all right in times of peace, but it is not what is wanted now, and while we might possibly gain a little in enabling certain people to play cricket, or to amuse themselves—in all probability they will not play cricket, but will smoke, or do something of that sort which wilt injure them—I see no argument brought forward which convinces me, or, so far as I can see, convinces anybody, that there is going to be a saving in money, which, after all, is the chief thing at the present moment. I venture to submit that, unless it can be shown there is going to be an appreciable saving of money, we ought not now in time of war to bring forward what is a very controversial measure, and endeavour to juggle with the hands of the clock. Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, supposing I do not put my watch back, what is going to happen?

You will miss your train.

Supposing I do not want to go by train, is there to be any penalty for not altering your clock or watch, or is it at all likely that ordinary people—and, after all, the world is composed chiefly of ordinary people—are going to alter all their habits merely because a certain number of people, honestly, no doubt, have taken up this faddish idea, as I think, and desire it should be done? Parliament can do all sorts of things, but why should Parliament interfere with the private life of the people? If in the past they had given less time to all these grandmotherly ideas and grandmotherly legislation, and had taken a little more trouble to see what was being done abroad, and what Germany and our other enemies were doing, we should be in a very much better position to-day. That is one reason why I object so very much to this Bill. Before the War we were always told we ought to do this or that, because the Germans had done it. I think if the Germans have done it, it is a very good reason why we should not do it. I myself do not want to have anything more to do with Germany in any way at all, and I think it is a very excellent reason, if true that the Germans have done it, that we should not do it ourselves. When I was told, that this old controversial measure was going to be brought forward again and the Government give an extra day for it, I could hardly believe my senses. I do not know whether the hon. Member for East Herts (Mr. Billing) is in the House, but he has been trying, and I have been trying, to get a day for the Air Service Debate, which was promised as soon as the financial business of the year had been closed. The financial business of the year closed on 4th April. We have not had the Debate, and we are being delayed to discuss whether or not some people who would like to get up an hour earlier in the morning are to compel everyone else to do the same thing. That seems to be childish. If I want to get up earlier I shall get up earlier without asking the right hon. Gentleman opposite to do the same, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants to get up earlier I shall be very pleased if he will do so, but I trust he will leave me to get up at what time I like. Under those circumstances, I earnestly trust the House will reject this Motion.

I have listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Baronet who has just sat down, and I think if he went into the merits of the Bill he would come to the conclusion that it would be a very good thing even from his point of view. With regard to the advantages of playing cricket in the light, there is no doubt a great value in that, but the right hon. Baronet did not think it would be a good thing to smoke. Well, we can smoke in the dark as well as we can in the light. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Does the hon. Member know in the dark whether his cigar or pipe is alight?

I am sorry I trespassed on the smoking question because I do not indulge in smoking. The right hon. Baronet particularly wished to know if there was any saving in this Bill. I can assure him there will be a great saving. It is unfortunate, I think, that the Seconder of the Motion quoted certain houses which will benefit possibly the least by this Bill. Scores and hundreds of retail houses in London could be quoted which do not close until half-past eight at night, and, therefore, in each of those houses there will be a clear saving of an hour's lighting every night, which will amount to tens of thousands of pounds in the saving of light in their case alone. Therefore, I can assure the right hon. Baronet that there will be an actual saving of cash in this to the retailers, especially of London, and it is quite true, as the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) said, that the shops, like the banks, when they close do not finish their work. Even large houses like Harrods are working in their packing rooms underground, where they have to use artificial light, and if they finish an hour earlier it will be a consideration. With regard to the argument from the agricultural point of view, as far as I am aware, representing an agricultural Constituency, there is no real objection. As to the objection which the right hon. Baronet has given with regard to sending milk to London from Wiltshire, it has already been shown that the milk from Wiltshire is not given to him for his tea that morning, but it is probably either the afternoon or the following morning that he gets it. I can assure him the milk which is milked at four or five o'clock in the morning in Wiltshire is not used for breakfast the same morning.

But it has got to go; it does not matter who uses it. If you make this alteration, the milk will still have to go at the earlier hour. You have got to milk the cow just the same.