THE METRIC SYSTEM. 325 



which dimension is stated to differ appreciably from meridian to 

 meridian, owing to irregularity of form. 



Another objection often made to the metric system is the loss of 

 binary subdivision. In the system of binary subdivision we have 

 halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, thirty-seconds and sixty-fourths, 

 etc. It is contended that in decimal division these subdivisions be- 

 come awkward beyond halves; viz., 0.5, 0.25, 0.125, 0.0625, 0.03125, 

 0.015G25, etc. This is, no doubt, a weak point in the decimal system 

 generally. If the base of our notation were 12, or 16, instead of 10, 

 the objection would be made more remote. But it is useless at this 

 epoch to discuss an international change of arithmetical notation. 

 There does not seem to be the least prospect of such a change, nor 

 the least hope of its being made in the near future. Moreover, the 

 same objection applies to our decimal currency, and is scarcely felt in 

 that direction. Brokers reckon in the binary scale to one eighth, but 

 are said not to employ sixteenths. An inch is often subdivided to six- 

 teenths, but thirty-seconds are seldom used, sixty-fourths very rarely, 

 and yet smaller binary subdivisions are almost unknown. In fact, 

 where fine micrometer measurements are made in inch measure, they 

 are nearly always in decimals of an inch, and not in binary subdivisions. 

 In metric countries, the decimal subdivisions do not seem to con- 

 stitute a noticeable hardship. 



Most persons grant that the metric system is superior for practical 

 as well as scientific purposes to the British system, but dread the cost 

 of a change or transition. There can be no doubt that the question of 

 expense of transition is a serious one. In fact, if the only alterna- 

 tives were the immediate compulsory adoption of the metric system 

 on the one hand, to the extent of throwing away every existing measure 

 and standard, or never adopting the metric system, on the other 

 hand, it is probable that the latter alternative would be necessary; for 

 the trouble, vexation, expense and litigation to be expected from im- 

 mediate change would be terrible to contemplate. Fortunately, no 

 such alternatives are presented. We have the history of almost all 

 the continental nations of Europe to guide us in estimating the degree 

 of difficulty which would be expected in effecting the change. 



In France, the native land of the metric system, and the first 

 country officially to adopt it, the change was made very slowly. Dur- 

 ing the first half of the nineteenth century France stood almost alone 

 in this reform. Moreover, the initiation of the reform in 1795 took 

 place in the year III. of the French Bepublic, and was doubtless greatly 

 aided by the general upheaval of long established customs and tradi- 

 tions in France about that time. If it had not been for the French 

 Revolution, so terrible in many of its aspects, the metric system might 

 never have become a practical reality. 



