[TO THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR:]
SIR,—The courtesy and humour of Mr. Willett's letter in last week's Spectator are more evident than its logic. The financial considerations attending the engagement of a butler are not even remotely analogous to those by which the health and habits of a nation should be ruled. The fact that we shall still have twenty-four hours in a day does not meet the point that under Mr. Willett's scheme we shall all be practically compelled to rise and retire at altered times, whether we like it or not. The dismal troop of domestic woes that Mr. Willett's prophetic eye discerns will not be turned into bliss by the mere fact that the hands of the clock have been physically altered. The whole question seems to be in a nut- shell. Mr. Willett proposes so to shift the events and happenings of our day's life that we shall all be practically coerced into the early rising and retiring that many men now do from inclination, and the farm-labourer does from necessity. It may be ideal, and healthy, and economical ; but however you juggle with the hands of the clock, it means that the man who now goes to bed at 11 will be going at 9.40 on summer evenings, and the 10 eelock man will be going a few tninutes after 8.30! Those of us who get to our offices at 9 must find ourselves there by 20 to 8, the poor wife—who, as Mr. Willett rightly indicates, cannot "give notice "—haring got tie our breakfast at 6 or 8.30. Such is the erred. Mr. Willett's manipulation of the clock is only the method. Mr. Willett's appeal as to whether I should feel the loss of this or that particular hour is quite beside the mark. If he were to turn the hands of a clock all day no one would 16he any time—except himself. In proposing conscription instead of voluntary service be discusses the details of the new uniform. What I challenge is not the uniform, but the
Previous page
