THE METRICAL SYSTEM OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXII, Issue 1266, 21 July 1864, Page 2

THE METRICAL SYSTEM OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

(From the Times.)

Mi Ewart's Bill for m iking the use of the Metrical Astern of weights and measures permissive has been ead a 9econd time in the House of Common*. As ■r. Milnor Gibson intimated his objection# to ever one of its provisions as well as to its principle, it is * .fficult to understand upon what grounds he support. 1 the second reading. It may be felt, indeed, that f o render the use of the Metrical system permissive vill, in its ultimate results, bo about as harmless a proc ?ding as to legalize the use of napoleons and frauds instead of pounds and shillings, or of the French language instead of the English, ft would be rather hard, however, that for the pleasure of witnessing the certain results of this experiment, Mr. Ewart should put the Board of Trade to the trouble and expense of providing 700 fresh standards to be distributed over the country, that the collectors of Excise and Revenue should have to acquaint themselves not only with the new system of weights and measures, but with its relations to the old, and that every scale of duties should henceforth have to be adapted to the new quantities. Nothing but the prospect of the most decided advantages would justify should a vexatious enactment, and one cannot but be surprised that the most practical Legislative Assembly in the world should have even appeared to give assent to the principle of such a measure. Its permissive character, indeed, which in one point of view makes it harmless, in another is its worst feature, for it implies the admission of a third unit into our system of weights and measures. We have now the yard for lineal measure and the pound for measure of weight. Mr. Ewart's Bui would introduce in addition the metre and the measures of weight, capacity, and surface founded on it. That is to say, an Act having been passed not bo very long ago to establish one uniform system of weights and measures throughout the country, Mr. Ewart would neutralize the whole effect of the law, and introduce a confusion ten times more confounded, because its atoms or units are unknown, and to the mass of Englishmen unintelligible. It may be a matter of dispute whether the metre or the yard is a preferable standard, but the use of both at once would be an intolerable nuisance. Supposing, however, that the change were made compulsory, as it ought to be if there is any change at all, the proposal to introduce the French unit is a gratuitous aggravation of the inevitable objections to such a step. What reason is there in the first place, for any change whatever in the unit ? The preamble of this Bill recites that its object is the "promotion and extension of our internal as well as of our foreign trade." So far, however, as our internal trade is concerned, it is obvious that no possible advantage could be gained from measuring by metres of 39 inches instead of by yards of 36, and that, on the contrary, the change would, at all events for a time, be a source of immense trouble and confusion. The sole advantages contemplated for our internal trade must, therefore, be the introduction of a decimal system of subdivision and multiplication. This, result, however, might equally be obtained with our present units, and all the supposed advantages of decimalization reaped without incurring the vast evils of a change of standard. But even if a change of unit were desirable, it remains to be shown that there is sufficient reason for our adopting the French standard and all its fantastic nomenclature. A Metrical System is not necessarily the French Metrical System, as the introducers of this Bill seem to imagine. So far as the scientific value of the French unit goes, some of the most eminent advocates of a Metrical System of some sort think the metre as unsatisfactory a standard as could well have been chosen. There is no reason in the nature of the case why we should found our weights and measures on the length of an are of the earth's meridian any more than on the distance from the earth to the moon, and professor Dr. Morgan is a sufficient authority for eaying that the one is about as reasonable a basis as the other. The sole argument, in fact, for the French standard is that it is so largely used on the Continent. It is not used, however, in Austria, Prussia, Russia, and the East. Our commercial connexions with these countries are hardly less important than with the natives under French influence ; and if the proposed change would facilitate our commerce with France and Italy, it would confuse our relations with America, Canada, Australia, India, and all our numerous dependencies. The same consideration applies to the proposed decimalization of our system. If a chauge is to be introduced into our methods of multiplying arid subdividing our standards, and one uniform system established throughout our tables, it is very doubtful indeed whether the decimal system is the most advisable. A duodecimal scale would probably be by far the most convenient.

Supposing, however, that it were as desirable as we are persuaded it is unnecessary to change our standards, to introduce the French unit, and to decimalize our tables, the question remains whether it is practicable. It is possible, no doubt, to draw up a harmonious arid symmetrical system upon paper ; to calculate to any number of decimal points, and even ad infinitum, the value of every existing weight and measure iu the new standards; to distribute rough approximations of the comparative values for public information, to add a knowledge of the names of the cardinal numbers in Greek and Latin to the other superfluous qualifications which are required from national school-boys, and enact with all the authority of the Queen's Majesty and the two Houses of Parliament that Englishmen shall "from and after the passing" of the Act relinquish all their accustomed measures and names of weight, length, and capacity ; but legislation is not omnipotent any more than any other human operation, and habits and thoughts and customs engrained in every turn of expression and every system of reckoning are beyond its power of legislation. Can the farmer be made to leave off talking of his acres, the horsedealer of hands, the carpenter of his foot-rule, the carrier of his miles, or the potboy of his " arf-a-pint ? " Fancy offering a cabman a litre of beer, or arguing with him about the number of kilometres he had driven you. The simple fact is it would not be done. It is well known to those who are best acquainted with the habits of the French that even at this date —more than sixty years from the first introduction of the system—the people still hold to their old measures and weights, and even, to some extent, to their old coinage. Jacques JJonhomme calculates his daily budget in sous, and not in centimes, and the difficulty of squaring his calculations with the coinage in which the epicier gives him change is a constant source of quarrels and discomfort. Go into the market-place and there is not an article of consumption which you will find sold by the legal standard, and there are many which are even priced in the prohibited coinage. You wi\l buy oysters by the unphilosophical dozen instead of by the orthodox ten, and will drink your wine or colfee by more measures than are used in an English restaurant or coffee-shop, none of these will be the correct decimalized Greek and Latin, and their actual relation to the legal standards will be unknown. You will order your wine and beer in quantities as arbitrary and uncertain as an English cask or bottle. The Government is obliged to recognize in its trade and navigation ieturns standards of tonnage and weights of cargo unauthorized by the Metrical System ; and even the Institute itself is forced to such infringements of philosophy as to speak of geographical and nautical miles instead of kilometres, and to describe the area of countries in square leagues instead of in hecturas.

The truth is, sncli a change as the bill contemplates amounts to a change of language. Not long ago the mayor of a little Alpine watering-place, which had suddenly become attractive to tourists, issued an edict that the inhabitants, who were afflicted with an unintelligible Romance dialect, should on and after a certain date leave off their native tongue and speak nothing but German. The only consequence was the growth of a barbarous dialect ten times more unintelligible to foreigners than the original native idiom. Just a similar confusion would be the sole result of making use of the barbarous terms scheduled by Mr. ICwarfc compulsory on the tenacious population of these isles. The mere permission to use them is a very harmless demonstration as far as the mass of the country goes, and perfectly unnecessary as far as the merchants who are engaged in French commerce are concerned. They are sufficiently acquainted with the two systems and their relations for all practical purposes, and the adoption of French weights and measures to assist their calculations would be as reasonable as the abolition of the English language to enable them to correspond with their customers in French. Proposed New Weights and Measures.—The weights and measures to be authorised by Mr. Ewart's Bill, if it should pass, will be as follows:— Instead of the yard there will be the "metre," which will be about a yard and a tenth—39 371 inches, the other measures of length to be its decimal multiples or divisions ; thus, on the one hand, there will be ten metres, called a " dekametre," and on the other the tenth of a metre will be the " decimetre," and so on. 1,000 metres, a kilometre, will be the nearest approach to the old mile ; it will be nearly two-thirds of a mile—o-621. For square measure the unit will be an "arc," which will be about 120 square yards—ll9 603 *, a "centiare" the hundredth part of an are or a square metre, will be the nearest to our square yard, being one-fifth more

l.i2t>. 100 arcs, a hectare, are -"4fl acies. J"or measures of capacity the unit will be the ' litre, about a pint and three-quarters—l-761. Ten litres a "dekalitre," will be two gallons and a fifth—2-201. The small drinker may take his " decilitre," about the-sixth of a pint (0176), or his "centilitre," which is tiie tenth part of a decilitre. For weights the unit will Be a " grain," nearly 16 grains— 15.433; 1,000 grams, a "kilogram," will be about 2lb. and a fifth of a pound— 2 205 ; 1,000 kilograms, 2.204'" 14lb. will be a ton. The double and the half of all these measures i\nd weights may also be used —Ibid, March 14.