British Weights and Measures, Considered from a Practical Standpoint

Preface

T object of this work is to throw some light upon a little understood and unappreciated question, and to convey a warning to the people not to lightly sanction a change which would have far-reaching effects in ways not anticipated by them. Some months since, the Secretary of State for the Colonies invited expressions of opinion from the various Governments in this quarter of the world as to the advisableness or otherwise of introducing the metric system, but, I understand, the general answer was to the effect that in future the matter would not be dealt with by the States separately, as it now devolves upon the Federal authorities to decide the question.

In the preparation of this treatise, the researches of others have been freely drawn upon. It often happens that the standard works upon metrology, while of great value to students of the subject, are difficult to procure, and bristle with technical arguments, which are not attractive to the general reader. In this instance, the aim has been to present a survey of some of the most salient features of a long-continued and vexed controversy, in terms which will appeal to the ready comprehension of those who care to read.

I have just completed twenty years of service in my present office, and it therefore gives me especial gratification in undertaking the duty of publishing this work at the present juncture.

J.W.E.

Sydney, February, 1904.

POSTSCRIPT.

I is somewhat singular that after the whole of this work was in type, two messages, having a direct bearing upon the subject discussed, should have reached us by medium of the cable. The first was that the House of Lords had passed the second reading of a Bill to make the use of the metric system compulsory within two years. The second stated that a Blue Book, issued by the Home Government, “shows that the majority of the Colonies favour the metric system of weights and measures.”

It may be safely assumed that the House of Lords is little in sympathy with those engaged in retail buying and selling. The ranks of hereditary legislators are sometimes recruited from among successful and opulent manufacturers who have dealings abroad, who are unconcerned as to the many and the serious inconveniences which in the following pages I have attempted to show would necessarily fall upon domestic traders, as a consequence of the suggested change. Such of the peerage as have no connection with trading interests cannot Well be considered competent judges. As a body they are not in touch with the requirements or needs of the people, and do not constitute a tribunal of last resort upon such matters which can be leaned upon with confidence. The decision of the House of Lords is not likely to be endorsed by the representative House of Commons, which, as pointed out, hereafter, has never yet been induced to sanction the introduction of a system not asked for, and certainly not wanted by the people.

As to the second message there is this to be said: No hint is given as to the preponderance of opinion in the "self-governing" colonies. Great Britain possesses a number of dependencies still under the sole control of Crown appointees; and so far as the information given goes, the voice of some official in an out-of-the-way possession may have been considered as equal in value to the deliberate reply of a Cabinet responsible to a representative legislature. There have been no outward and visible signs that in any of the Colonies efforts have been made to obtain the true views of the trading communities. In fact, it may be regarded as tolerably certain that many of the reports furnished have been framed by officers imperfectly acquainted with the subject. The late Chief Justice Higinbotham, of Victoria, when in the political arena, objected that much of Colonial Office policy was the work af "a clerk called Rogers." Possibly many ot the answers given to the Colonial Office Circular have been written by "clerks called Rogers," and are altogether valueless as expressions of public opinion.

These, and other signs of the times, indicate that there is an increase of the danger against which I have endeavoured to warn those who consider what I have written, and, I may add, finally, that in the fulfilment of what I consider a public duty, I have determined to send a copy of this treatise to every member of the Federal Legislature, before which body, in the fulness of time, this most important question will come up for decision.

J.W. E.

March, 1904.

Contents

PAGE

WEIGHTS & MEASURES.

CHAPTER I. An Unfamiliar Subject, but of Wide Importance

Occasionally one meets in the press some more or less vague reference to the suggested decimalisation of our coinage, and metricalisation of our weights and measures. These two matters are, more often than not, improperly associated, as if the determination of one hinged upon the other, and should be jointly considered. It is really not so. The problem of altering the basis and incidence of our metallic currency may be dealt with, without touching the more important of the two questions.

There are few who have any adequate grasp of the momentous issues involved in determining upon what foundation our system of weights and measures should rest. Much has been written upon the subject. To the great bulk of the people it might as well never have been penned—they know nothing, or practically nothing, of it, and the little information which has reached them has often been of a misleading or negative character.

Royal Commissions and Parliamentary Select Committees have taken evidence, deliberated, and reported; scientists have voiced their views; commercial men have stated their opinions; and the ever present fussy faddist obtrudes himself upon the field. But, to most people, the evidence given, the arguments advanced, theories propounded, and conclusions arrived at, are all as sealed books. This, after all, is not to be wondered at—it is only natural. Metrology (or the science of weights and measures) attracts but few. The literature devoted to it is not captivating. It has with force been said that "books on the subject are few, and frequently have the defects of being unnecessarily and repulsively dry, as well as highly inaccurate and incorrect."

Commerce between nations is undoubtedly impeded by the existence of conflicting systems of weights and measures. Obviously uniformity would be desirable. The same might (to a far greater extent) be said of language, and of many other things.

There are some who clamour for change, if only for the sake of novelty. Others are indolent, and care little what happens so long as they themselves are not seriously inconvenienced or disturbed in their business relations. Again, there are some who wish to push to the furthest extremity the latest hobby they have adopted; and still others who hope for profit even from a revolution. To the latter belongs the promotion of much of the agitation to combat which this treatise has been compiled.

The Commonwealth House of Representatives has adopted a resolution favourable to the adoption of decimal coinage, and the metric system of weights and measures—though the two do not harmonise—but the decision has been wisely safeguarded with the declaration that any change in these respects must be preceded by action on the part of the mother country. In New Zealand the Government has been empowered to establish, on and after January 1, 1906, the metric system of weights and measures, by promulgation of an Order-in-Council. In the first instance alluded to, no very harmful step has been taken; and in the second, it is scarcely within the range of possibility that a system will be set up which would be in antagonism to that prevailing elsewhere in the Empire, and the power will doubtless remain dormant.

It would be purposeless to review the many futile attempts which have been made in the United Kingdom to obtain legislative sanction to the compulsory introduction of the metric system of weights and measures. In the mother land there were many things which required redress, such as the multiplicity of provincial and other customary weights and measures (existing really in defiance of the law), with which we in Australia have never been familiar. Those serious blots upon an otherwise admirable system were no doubt provocative of vexations, and had some effect in creating a desire for another system. Some thought they had a better one ready made to their hands in that adopted by France and other European countries. Still, in spite of agitations and recommendations, the Imperial Parliament has not yet been induced to legalise the introduction of a new order of things, the effects of which would be carried into every home.

It is no part of my purpose to argue that whatever is must be right—that because a system exists, and has long existed, it is too sacred to touch. But it would be equally stupid not to point out the dangers attendant upon a change which is asked for by no inconsiderable or no inconsequential body of people, well-meaning in many cases, but not always so well versed in the real question as they claim to be.

In the gathered volumes of evidence and research upon this topic, are to be found totally contradictory opinions of men of science, manufacturers, engineers, and those who are in any way concerned in calculations for trade or other purposes. But it must be borne in mind that the advocates of change have been the promoters of inquiring Commissions, and have been careful to always put forward only witnesses in sympathy with their views. These have always been found in abundance. On the other side there has mainly been indifference, and certainly no organisation.

This is not intended as a scientific treatise, nor as an historical account of the circumstances under which the metric system came into vogue, but a slight reference to both points may help in the understanding of the issues involved. For those who wish to penetrate deeper, there is a mass of literature to be consulted, not, as has been pointed out, always accurate in its nature.

CHAPTER II. Origin and Spread of the Metric System

Towards the end of the eighteenth century events moved rapidly in France. Internal affairs were in a chaotic state—among them weights and measures. There was a multiplicity of systems, conflicting in fundamental units, and it was really a case of "confusion worse confounded." In neighboring States the conditions in this respect were no better, but our Gallic friends were then bent on "making history." This was one of the matters taken in hand, and in no part of the world was reform more needed. It was decided to found a new system. A committee of savants took as a base what was at one time imagined to be the ten-millionth part of the meridian quadrant passing through Paris, as deduced from French geodetic measurements made in 1740. This supposed quarter circumference of the globe was divided into one hundred parts, which were each divided into one hundred kilometres, and the kilometres were cut up into one thousand sections, called metres. This became the pivotal point upon which the whole system turns, and gave it the name by which it has become known.

Though long and loudly acclaimed as the perfection of human wisdom, keen authorities upon the question have over and over again exposed the hollowness of any such pretension. For instance, Sir John Herschel took serious objection to the adoption, as a base, of the quarter circumference of the sphere in preference to its axis of revolution, which he considered "a blemish on the very face of the system, a sin against geometric simplicity." Seiss flatly says "it is unscientific, notwithstanding its great pretensions to science," and points out "it is founded on a curved line instead of a straight one—follows a circumference for a measure of length instead of an axis or diameter," while, further, "it is inaccurate and untrue, as now admitted, by 1 too little in every 5300 parts."

Similar adverse scientific criticisms might be quoted. Still, as stated previously, the present object is not to plunge into this aspect of the question, and it would not have been referred to but as a means to clearing away one of the many fallacies which has grown up and been fostered in regard to it—that the metric system is the perfection of scientific accuracy, and as such entitled to veneration in the highest degree. The fact that a local writer, Mr. Thomas Ranken, of Lismore, Richmond River, has in a thoughtful work given able attention to this portion of the subject, all the more disinclines me to discuss it, but I cannot refrain from paying him the compliment of making the following extract from his essay, "Measure for Measure," which fairly crystallises what might be said in this connection. He points out: "Notwithstanding all the fuss that has been made over this system as a scientific system, which all the world should follow, the fact of the matter is that it is thoroughly unscientific, unmathematical in its basis; and its unit, the metre, or measure, except for its being [assumed] 1/10000000th part of the quarter circumference of the earth, is a measure of nothing."

The French adopted this system in 1793, when the Revolution was in full swing. Then the conquering legions of that country carried it with them into Belgium and other neighboring States. In its home the system had an uncertain existence for many years, but by the end of the nineteenth century it received adoption in all the countries of Europe except the United Kingdom and Russia. If "the course of true love never did run smoothly," it is also true that the introduction of this system into various Principalities, Kingdoms, and Empires was not unattended with difficulties; and, hereafter, more particular attention will be paid to the troubles which arose.

CHAPTER III. Facility in Calculations Compared

One question which soon presents itself to the mind of the inquirer is, "which system will prove the most convenient in our daily calculations?" To be in a position to return a confident answer is one not so easily reached as is often assumed. Those who favour the metric system lay great stress upon its simplicity. Admittedly it has much to recommend it in that respect, and the enthusiasm of its supporters ensures that point not being allowed to escape notice. Still, those who contrast the British system with the supposed newer one, may not always be aware of the mass of independent, solid, well-fortified opinions in favour of our own.

Mr. C. F. Howard, an eminent arithmetician, declared before a House of Commons Committee that after studying the whole question for a quarter of a century, during three-fifths of which period he had a preference for the metric system, he had come to the conclusion that "the British system is immeasurably superior in every respect. Any calculation which can be made by the French metric system, we can make with equal ease by the British system, and hundreds of calculations can be made much more easily by the British system than by the metric system itself." To adopt the latter would be, he termed it, "not only a national, but a worldwide calamity."

Sir F. Bramwell, Bart, F.R.S., the famous engineer, speaking of his experience in Egypt, in the service of the Khedive, where he worked alongside French engineers, said he "was struck with the want of facility with which their calculations were done."

Turning to quite another field of operations, we hear much about the convenience of the metric system in scientific calculations. That this system is largely, almost exclusively, used by scientists must be admitted. Some, it is true, simply follow in the footsteps of others; some, merely to give a tone of science to their books. It has also been pointed out that until within the last forty years or so the bulk of the scientific teaching was done on the continent, that many of the best professors got their knowledge there, and that they were brought up in the metric system, and have kept to it. Now, a distinguished chemist, Dr. Hurter, chief of the United Alkali Company's immense laboratories, familiar with both methods, and at that very moment using the metric system against his inclinations, wrote, that for analytical purposes—“I have no hesitation whatever in saying that there is no benefit in the metric unit of weights and measures; for analytical purposes the grain is in every way a superior unit. . . . In many operations the decimal system is of enormous advantage, but it is not universally so. I hold that the addition of the identical weights of casks written in two ways, once as kilogrammes, and once as cwts. qrs. lbs., will be made in a shorter time by anyone in the English system. I have made the experiment some years ago with our clerks, and they all used more time in adding up the kilo columns, and all declared it was stiffer mental work."

The virtues of ease and speed in calculations claimed for the metric system is, after all, the common property of all decimal systems, of which the metric is but one. In "Modern Metrology," a veritable storehouse of information, gathered from the four quarters of the earth, the author, Mr. L. D’A. Jackson, points out "The advantages of rapidity of calculation accompanying any decimal system are very great, and the rigidity of the ancient decimal systems of Egypt and China has been scrupulously imitated by the French in their metric system. It can be applied to any unit equally well, provided that there is an indifference as to whether the dependent units of the system are convenient or inconvenient for commercial purposes in weighing and measuring. It must, however, be noticed that the convenience is solely due to accordance with numerical notation as regards decimality." He goes on to say that though decimalisation may be easily applied to any arbitrary unit, "the fact remains that the French and the Chinese and Japanese systems are the only ones in which it is actually carried out and fully applied at the present day."

Suppose the metric system be adopted. Obviously at once confusion would arise in every counting house, every shop, every place concerned in trade. It would not be easy to throw off old and familiar methods. It has been sensibly pointed out that "people in trade, away from school a few years, get wedded to their habits, and their minds are accustomed to other calculations, fractional parts of the integer, reckoning half pence and pence in the pound, and they would kick against the change, because they would have to turn themselves inside out, and get rid of all they had known before and take up a new system."

Imagine in a mercantile office a skilled accountant working by the present mode, having sent to him as an assistant one who knew nothing but the metric system. To say that each should have to learn both methods, scarcely forms a recommendation, nor furnishes an argument in support of the contention that the change would be a simple operation.

CHAPTER IV. Metrical Units Unnatural

Preceding the Revolution in France, there occurred a political change in the relations of the Anglo-Saxon race destined to have a world-wide effect. Discontent was succeeded by an appeal to arms, which ended in the establishment of the great republic of the United States of America. Then, and for a long time after, there existed bad feeling on both sides. The Americans, starting out on a great career for themselves, sought to disentangle themselves from all old-world nations. Still, they had carried with them across the Atlantic, the English language, English laws, English customs and weights and measures.

The severance of political ties with the mother country resulted in many internal commercial changes. There came the decimalisation of the coinage. Then was entrusted to a Committee the task of investigating the various systems of weights and measures in existence, with a view to the acceptance of the best. This resulted in what has been termed "the most glowing eulogy of the British system ever written."

The report of the Committee, presented in 1821 to Congress, was penned by John Quincey Adams, then, and for all time, one of the foremost men in the history of the congeries of States forming the mighty confederation of the Western Hemisphere. The year in which Adams wrote was, in point of time, very close to events which had an influence in increasing the feeling of Americans against all things British—the incidents of the war of 1812-15. However, the fury of the storm left no cloud upon the keen intellect of Adams when he set himself the task of dispassionately examining the merits of rival systems. It is said that he approached the proposal to adopt the metric system with an enthusiastic desire for a common system of weights and measures for all nations. Analysing the question, and his words have not since been improved upon, he said—"The French metrology, in the ardent and exclusive search for an universal standard from nature, seems to have viewed the subject too much with reference to the nature of things, and not enough to the nature of man. Its authors do not appear to have considered the proportions dictated by nature between the physical organisation of man and the unit of his weights and measures. The standard taken from the admeasurement of the earth, has no reference to the admeasurement and power of the human body. The metre is a length of 40 inches nearly, and by applying to it exclusively the principle of decimal division, no measure corresponding to the ancient foot was provided. A unit of that denomination, though with slightly varied differences of length, was in universal use among all civilised nations, and the type of it is found in the dimensions of the human body. Perhaps for half of the occasions which arise in the life of every individual for a linear measure, the instrument to suit his purpose must be portable, and fit to be carried in his pocket. Neither the metre, the half-metre, nor the decimetre are suited to that purpose. The half-metre corresponds, indeed, with the ancient cubit, but perhaps one of the causes which have everywhere, since the time of the Greeks, substituted the foot in place of the cubit, has been the superior convenience of the shorter measure. Besides which, the cubit being the unit, the half cubit might serve the purpose of the foot; but the metre, divisible only by two and ten, gave no measure practically corresponding to the foot whatever. It appears to have been considered that decimal arithmetic, although affording great facilities for the computation of numbers, is not equally well suited for the division of material substances. A glance of the eye is sufficient to divide material substances into successive halves, fourths, eighths, and sixteenths. A slight attention will give thirds, sixths, and twelfths. But divisions into fifth and tenth parts are amongst the most difficult that can be performed without the aid of calculation." "To the common mass of the people the use of weights is in the market and the shops. The article weighed is to be carried home for the daily subsistence of the family. Subdivisions of the pound, the half, the quarter of a pound, are often necessary to conciliate the wants and the means of the neediest portion of the people, that portion to whom the justice of weight and measure is a necessity of life, and to whom it is one of the most sacred duties of the legislator to secure that justice, so far as it can be secured by the operation of human institutions. The transition state in France caused fraud on the scanty pittance of the poor. Small dealers in groceries and liquors gave the people ⅕ klo. for ½ lb., and ⅕ of a litre for the ½ setier. The decimal division became snares to the honesty of the seller, and cheats upon the wants of the buyer."

CHAPTER V. Inconvenience of the Metric Unit

Adams, starting off with a leaning to the metric system, found himself face to face with the inescapable conclusion that the British system was the best. His clear vision penetrated the flimsy pretensions of the supposedly new, but really primitive, system of metrology. What he wrote in 1821 is as applicable now as then to the merits of the question under notice. Later writers have taken much the same ground—in some instances indeed they give but echoes of Adams's views; in others, extended research has added to their weight.

It must be remembered that the principles of our system have descended to us through long centuries—in our earliest traditions they are mentioned, and in the first British Acts of Parliament they are spoken of. Impurities crept in, and were a source of trouble so long back as the time when Magna Charta was assented to, for therein it was enacted there should be but "one weight and one measure" throughout the realm. It is curious to note that there then existed, as many centuries after, a strong demand for uniformity. Local customs proved too strong to sweep away, and it is only in comparatively recent times that many confusing provincialisms have been abolished, and some yet exist. Still the system as a system has always maintained its cardinal features. The adoption of its principles is with us as a people instinctive, and not easily to be eradicated.

As we have seen, Adams takes strong exception to the fundamental unit of the metric system, as inconvenient for every day use. Professor A. De Morgan, of London University College, in expressing somewhat similar thoughts, said: "I take an exception to the metre. It arose from a mere fanciful connection with the quarter of the meridian, which I think of no practical importance to any man alive. . . . The metre is, of course, too long to be the common measure. . . . In decimal division the next thing would be the decimetre, which would be too short to take the place of the foot. The same thing applies very much to the other measures, nor can I conceive the reason for urging the subdivision of the centimetre as opposed to the subdivision of one inch."

Seiss declared the metric system to be utterly meaningless, and inharmonious with nature, as well in its unit as in its fractions and multiplications; that it was inherently inconvenient. He says the unit of length is unstridable and incapable of any natural measurement. Sir John Herschell stigmatised it as "the worst measure in the world," and Becket Denison said "it was an inconvenient, inaccurate, and unstridable measure."

Herbert Spencer, in a series of articles published in the London Times in 1896, claimed that the fundamental principle of the metric system is essentially imperfect, and its faults great and incurable. He also added: "Professedly aiming to introduce uniformity of method, the metric system cannot be brought into harmony with certain unalterable divisions of space, nor with certain natural divisions of time; nor with the artificial divisions of time which all civilised men have adopted. As 10 is divisible only by 5 and 2 (of which the resulting fifth is useless), its divisibility is of the smallest, and having only a makeshift fourth and no exact third, it will not lend itself to that division into aliquot parts so needful for the purposes of daily life."

Jackson thus states his opinion: "For any country possessing a good single natural system of weights and measures, it [the metric] is a snare and a delusion, that much resembles the soufflèe, the fondant, the champagne-mousseux. the crinoline, and other French inventions of puerile type. As a universal commercial system it is deficient, from the fact of its being decimal, for most commercial nations and races are essentially binary in habit and form of thought."

It would be superfluous to add to the criticisms passed upon the evident unsuitableness of the metre as a unit. The quotations given are fairly representative of what has been written upon that point, but the concluding words in the extract given from Jackson's work leads to the consideration of another feature of the question.

CHAPTER VI. The Binary Scale a Natural One

It is incontrovertible that in dealing with the division of material substances, the binary scale comes into mental and practical play as easy and convenient. Not all the specious pleas of those who advocate the so-called reform can turn us from it. Its advantages over the decimal system in all the operations of every day life are apparent. Yet it will be convenient at this juncture to put in evidence some interesting records upon this phase of the matter.

In the second report of the Standards Commission, presented to the House of Commons in 1869, it is stated:—"The natural inclination of the mind to half and quarter continually exhibits itself in the sub-division of almost every base. The metric system does not afford the same facility, either for change of the adopted base, or for the continued binary sub-division, and any attempt to force it into use in shops and workmen's operations, would probably be felt as a needless grievance."

Mr. C. F. Howard has asserted his conviction that more than half of the people who are born into the world, and live to manhood, are quite unable to understand the decimals. "Take the sixteenths" (he says), "a child knows that an ounce is the sixteenth part of a pound, but it takes a highly trained intellect to realise that .0625 is the decimal of it."

The late Sir Geo. B. Airy, Astronomer Royal, speaking from a long and unique experience, which gives great weight to his opinion, was unhesitating in his protestations against the suggested change, and used no uncertain tones when he said: "If I had a new nation to create, with a new system of weights and measures, I would give them the binary scale throughout. That I conceive would be nearest to perfection—the binary scale, with means to enable us to use decimal multiples or sub-multiples" He also stated: "For daily life, people understand sub-division by halves better than any other sub-division," and "the law is universal that a binary sub-division is easier than anything else."