THE METRIC SYSTEM.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 13433, 26 March 1907, Page 4

THE METRIC SYSTEM.

The defeat in the House of Commons of a Compulsory Metric Weights and Measures Bill should he a complete answer to those who desire to see a decimal system introduced in this colony. In passing, it is worthy of notice that while it has been claimed that some three hundred members of the House of x Commons were pledged- to support a bill making the adoption of the system compulsory, only 118 were found to vote for it in the division which has just taken place. Theoretically, no .doubt, there is much to commend the decimal system, but in practice it has not anything like, the same 'attractive appearance. And here let it be stated that while there is a distinction between the terms " metric " and "decimaj," the one referring to weights and .measures and the other to coinage, practically both are decimal systems and alike, using multiples of ten instead of twelve and three and other figures. However*, for our present purpose \ the metric system as applying to weights and measures will suffice i as an illustration. As far as New Zealand is concerned the mere fact j that England has not adopted it is sufficient reason for our decline ing to adopt it. We must use the .system used by the country we principally deal with, and that is England. Were our dealings mainly with France we should find it an advantage to use the same system as is used in that country, or if England had decided to gradually substitute the metric system for its present it would be advisable for us to follow suit. Under existing circumstances, however, it would, be foolishness on our part to make a change which would, only lead to confusion. There *ire many good reasons, tooj why England should maintain her present system as against the metric system, one of the best, perhaps, being that advanced by the President of the Board of Trade, that the bulk of British trade is with non-metric countries. Another very good reason is that it would cost many millions of money .and cause a serious disturbance in commercial affairs to change the system. | Every ch^rt, map, and survey, the | skilled work of generations, would have to be recasted at enormous expense. Then the metric system is by no- means pe.rfect, and no country in the world uses it ex-j clusively. Herbert Spencer has declared, its faults great and incurable, while Sir John Herschell describes the metre — the fundamental uteit — as " the worst measure in the world." The loss en-! tailed upon manufacturers and holders of- weighing machines arid measures of one kind and another i

through the adoption of a new system would be enormous, while the compensating advantages would be comparatively Small. If the system was extended, as it would have to be, to our coinage, the enforced withdrawal of huge quantities of coin from circulation would cause great losses. And for what? The best argument for the change is that it would simplify our calculations.^ So it would, for future generations; but it would be a great nuisance j to all of us who are living now and'; have got through our school life to have to change the habit of a lifetime and purchase our meat by the gramme, our drapery by the metre^ our beer by -the litre. Even if we were to adopt the metric and decimal systems they would not be uniform with those of other countries, for tfrere is no uniformity among the countries which use those systems. A first step towards making the aystetn universal is to decide upon uniformity. In the meantime whatever disabilities British trade may labour under in dealing with countries which have metric systems could be largely aai4 easily overcome by the use of a ready reckoner which will enable yards, feet, and inches to be transposed in a moment to metres, decimetres and so on. The change, if it ever becomes desirable, would be facilitated 1 also if the metric and decimal systems were taught in our schools. If they are so simple as it is claimed for them it would not be a great addition to the syllabus. At present, however, there is not a single valid reason why New Zealand should move in the direction of changing its sys-