THE METRIC SYSTEM.

Timaru Herald, Volume XC, Issue 13294, 24 May 1907, Page 3

THE METRIC SYSTEM.

REJECTED BY THE COMMONS. On March 22nd, Mr B. S. Strauss, M.P., for Mile-end, presented in the House oi Commons a petition "signed by 15,000 odd j)eople"—loud laughter)—the actual number was 16,637—in favour of the metric system.. He also declared that it contained the names of " a quantity of trade unions and a quantity" of people, engaged in all kinds of business, including the members of the textile and engineering industries. On being called to bring the petition to the Table, the hon. gentleman, with a great effort, raised a huge bundle of tightly-roll-ed papers in both arms, and staggered along under the weight of his burden to the bag beside the Speaker's Chair, where such things are deposited. He had to b.' assisted) by others in getting it safely stowed away.

Mr Kelley (S.W. Manchester) also presented a petition from the Corporation and citizens of Manchester in favour of the metric system. Mr Straus moved the second reading of the Weights and Measures (Metric System) Bill, which, proposed that on April 1,1910, or such other date as his Majesty, by Orderin Council shall determine, the metric system shall become compulsory, but that, as regards contracts there sholl be no retrospective operation. He explained that th: Bill was based on a recommendation of the Select Committee which sat in 1895, that the metric .system should be made compulsory afoer a probationary period of two years. Every other European country, excepb Russia had adopted the system, with beneficial results, and the example of Russia w;is not one which Tie would ask this country to follow. >Sir H. Norman (Wolverhampton) seconding, said he believed that 200 different weights and measui-es were used for dealing with corn alone. Our system of weights and measure.; was the most complicated the world had even seen, and, so far from being generally applicable, it varied, according to the article to be measured or weighed. To quote from a Colonial source the bare recital of our arithmetic tablcf; showed them to be freakish barbarisms and intolerable anachronisms .

Mr Arthur Haworth (Manchester) said the change proposed would entail a disturbance* to various industries which would: mean the loss of many millions of pounds, it had been estimated that the cost to the engineering industry would be over £t>o,000,000 .sterling. Eighty or ninety per cent, of the engineers in this country were opposed to tlie metric system. He moved the rejection of the Bill. Mr Shackle-ton (Clitheroe) seconded the amendment. He said that the whole of tne cotton trade offered determined opposition to the proposed change of the standards. Sir Edward Sassocn (Hythe), contended that the existing English system was barbarous, primitive, and cumbersomem, and pointed out that India, as well as all the Colonies, except Canada,, wptr in favour of the change to the metric system.

Sir George Scott Robertson (Gen. Bradford) believed that a compulsory metric system was impossible. People would not five up the old weights and measures. The strongest Government would " go out" if it attempted to change the pint. Mr Lloyd George (President of the Board of Trade said it was acknowledged that a change would cost money . Even a change in weights and measures would cost the-r.:-kiil traders about £2,000,000, but that wa3 only a small proportion of the cost to the community. At the present time, whenever a British firm got a sufficiently large order from abroad it was always ready to take th-3 trouble of putting on a clerk to reduce the quotation to metric figures. Nor must it. be forgotten that the adoption of the metric system might remove a handicap on our competitors at the present timeui. The bulk of our trade was undoubtedly with the non-metric countries, and he believed that the reluctance to make a change which was apparent proceeded not from apathy, but from apprehension lest we might injure our commerce with the suspicious populations of the Ease. As to the home trade, the e:cp2i'ience of France proved that you could not enforce such a change as was proposed. Before such a change could be affected you must induce the rtading and industrial committeees to agree to it.

On a division the second reading was rejected by 150 to 118. Commenting on the foregoing, the "Daily Chronicle" said :—Manufacturers are by no means of one mind in the matter, and workmen ar:-> probably on th.' whole opposed to it. The engineering trade is against it, and in the cotton trade organised labour is of the same mind. The reason is not wholly connected wHh the merite of the respective sy.-terns. It .seems from what Mr Shackleton said to be connected rather with considerations of wages. The system of payment by piece-work is very elaborate and complicated. It liars taken the men fifty years, said llr Shaclcltton,

to work out, the present scale. The metric system would put the whole thing int.) the melting pot again, and there seems to bo a fear that' the resultant might not be equally satisfactory. Thus on this sideissue, which is yet of the greatest importance ,the strength of the accomplished fact, the vis inertia© which is always opposed to any " new fangled notion," is powerfully re-inforced.