June 6, 191 8] 



NATURE 



275 



The use of the metric system is already obligatory 

 in thirty-four countries, representing a population of 

 437 millions, and optional in a further eleven countries 

 having a population of more than 727 millions. By 

 ourselves adopting it we should practically ensure its 

 establishment as the universal language of quantity, 

 but, on the other hand, it is equally clear that the 

 Imperial system could never become the universal 

 system because of its inherent defects. 



The Influence upon our Export Trade. — In opposing 

 the proposal that legislation should be introduced 

 whereby .all sales would be required to be expressed 

 in metric terms, the Committee states, that "the con- 

 tinuance of manufacture on the existing system while 

 the sale of the product had to be made on the metric 

 system would be confusing and inconvenient." 



This admission illustrates the indifference of the 

 Committee to the "confusion and inconvenience" 

 which it evidently considers British exporters should 

 continue to suffer, because it is precisely under these 

 conditions that we are attempting to expand our over- 

 seas trade. After the war it will be just as necessary 

 for Great Britain to organise and develop her export 

 trade — in order to reduce the burden of taxation and 

 restore her financial stability — as it has been for her 

 to organise the manufacture of munitions during the 

 war, and yet the Committee cannot agree to assist 

 our exporters by removing this unnecessary "confusion 

 and inconvenience." 



Are we for ever to remain deaf to the advice of our 

 overseas commercial representatives — both Government 

 and private — who for years past have urged us to adopt 

 the metric system? The opinions of these "men on 

 the spot" are apparently quite ignored, as no refer- 

 ence is made to them in the report. 



This brings me to the Committee's remarkable state- 

 ment that, as more than half the volume of our pre- 

 war export trade was with non-metric countries, we 

 should stand to lose more than we could gain if we 

 adopted the metric system. Realising apparently how 

 unsubstantial this argument is, the Committee pro- 

 ceeds to qualify it- by saying : — "The position would no 

 doubt be materially altered if" the Colonies and other 

 outstanding countries "would simultaneously with us 

 adopt the metric system." It is curious that, in regard 

 to the Colonies, anv doubt of their readiness to follow 

 our lead should be entertained, especially as in the 

 same report the Committee states : — " At the Colonial 

 Conference of 1902 a resolution in favour of the intro- 

 duction of the metric system throughout the British 

 Empire was carried." This desire was confirmed by 

 the Dominions Royal Commission Report of 1917, 

 which stated, in regard to the metric system : — "There 

 is clearly in the Dominions a considerable body of 

 opinion in favour of the change. So far, however, all 

 efforts to induce the community in the Mother Country 

 to agree to a change have proved unavailing." 



.According to statistics quoted by the Committee in 

 another part of the report (chap, ii.), rather more than 

 one-third of the annual value of the exports of the 

 produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom 

 went to British Possessions during the fourteen years 

 ending 1913, and the item coal represented "fully 

 three-quarters of the total weight of our exports of 

 all kinds." 



Obviously, coal could be exported just as readily in 

 metric tons as in Imperial tons, so that if the Com- 

 mittee had boldly stated that Great Britain's adoption 

 of the metric system would certainly be followed 

 promptly by similar action on the part of the Colonies 

 and British Possessions, and probably by America at 

 no very distant date, they could have presented a 

 strong case in favour of the metric system instead of 

 a weak case against it. 



In concluding that the United States would be 

 NO. 2^^6, VOL. lOll 



opposed to the metric system, the Committee has 

 apparently failed to appreciate that it was anti- 

 metric only so long as its products were principally 

 destined for home consumption or for export to the 

 British Empire. But note what is happening now that 

 the United States aspires to become an exporting 

 j nation in the widest sense. In the last few years the 

 I American demand for the metric system has grown 

 enormously, and in his report, dated January, 19 16, 

 to the International High Commission relative to the 

 use of the metric system in export trade, Dr. S. W. 

 Stratton (Director of the Bureau of Standards at 

 Washington) said : — " Any manufacturer who, through 

 ignorance, fear of confusion, or lack of enterprise, is 

 unw^illing to attempt to meet the requirements of 

 foreign trade should confine his attention to our 

 domestic trade. He should not, however, be per- 

 rtiitted to retard the development of foreign trade by 

 his inertia or indifference to the metric system, which 

 is now the' legal system in thirty-four of the countries 

 whose trade we seek. Still less should his opposition 

 or his opinion have consideration in comparison with 

 the judgment of those who seek earnestly and by all 

 possible means the extension of trade with metric 

 countries." 



Note also the significance of the official announce- 

 ment published in January, 1918, to the effect that 

 the United States War Department had adopted the 

 metric system for the artillery, machine-guns, and 

 maps required by their armies in the present war. 

 Whether Great Britain or the United States takes 

 the lead in the complete adoption of the metric system, 

 , it is reasonably certain that the other would quickly 

 j foHow, and, in view of our greater dependence on 

 overseas trade, it is clear that we ought to move first. 

 The Effect upon our Competition with Germany. — 

 1 The statement that our adoption of the metric system 

 I would place us at a disadvantage with Germany 

 j should be contrasted with the attitude of the German 

 nation, which, in the early 'seventies, adopted what 

 I was known as the French system, notwithstanding 

 I the anti-FVench sentiments then existing on account 

 I of the Franco-Prussian War. Since that time twenty- 

 I four other countries have likewise adopted what is 

 ! now truly described as the international metric system, 

 ' and we accordingly remain a non-metric country to 

 I our own serious disadvantage. The war has demon- 

 ' strated the need for greater intimacy of contact 

 between the man of science in his laboratory and the 

 I industrialist in his workshop. In Germany the metric 

 i system is common to both these partners in progress, 

 I but in this country, while the metric system is the 

 I language of science, it is a comparatively unknown 

 I tongue in our workshops. Is it to our advantage that 

 I this estrangement should be perpetuated? If we 

 I adopted the metric system at once we should sur- 

 j mount the temporary difficulty of accustoming our- 

 selves to the metric notation long before Germany 

 emerged "from under the cloud of the world's dis- 

 approval consequent upon her infamous acts in the 

 i present war. We cannot, however, rely upon this 

 I sentiment lasting more than a few years, so we should 

 I act promptly. All our industries will require over- 

 i hauling when we abandon the manufacture of war 

 I munitions in favour of peace products, and it is wrong 

 ; to assume that we shall simply revert to pre-war 

 I standards. New methods, new designs, new ideas 

 I will be the order of the day, and the time will be 

 i particularly opportune for starting afresh on the metric 

 basis. 



The Opposition of the Textile Trade. — Evidence of 

 the antagonism of the textile trade appears in several 

 parts of the report. This attitude suggests the thought 

 that even assuming the textile industry feels so sure 

 of its grip on the world's markets that it can afford 



