JUNE 11, 1914} 
NATURE 
391 
of the metric system, I wish to direct your attention 
to the greatly different circumstances of communica- 
tion between the various countries from what formerly 
existed. The interchange of products between the 
various countries has increased very much, and it is 
to the interests of everybody that this interchange 
should be facilitated as much as possible. One of the 
greatest facilities is that the same weights and 
measures should be used everywhere. Now the real 
requirements of such an international system are two 
in number. One is that the measures and weights 
should have the same base ratio throughout; that 
means to say one pound in the English system should 
be 16 oz.; one ounce should be 16 drams; one foot 
16 in.; one yard 16 ft., and so on. That would be a 
system with the same base ratio throughout. Only 
16 is not a good one. I am, of course, aware that 
people say 12 is a good ratio because there are so 
many aliquot factors in 12—three times four, twice 
six—and that consequently 12 is handy. We are, 
however, faced by the fact that all people on earth 
who count, count by tens, and that has fixed the base 
ratio for any international system. If you attempt to 
put in any other ratio it would lead to confusion, 
and would not be so convenient. Therefore the base 
ratio of Io is essential. 
Now as regards a little more of the history of the 
metric system. In 1861 the old Federation of German 
States instructed a Commission to propose a national 
system of weights and measures, and after they had 
deliberated a short time they came back to the Federa- 
tion and said, ‘‘We must say that the only sensible 
thing ’’—the only thing that would justify the up- 
setting of the old measures which were very confusing 
in Germany at the time—‘‘the only reason for dis- 
turbing people and introducing new weights and 
measures can be to have an international system.’ At 
that time the metric system was not as widely intro- 
duced as now, and the Commission very carefully 
went into the question whether they should adopt 
the English or the French system of weights and 
measures. It must be remembered that the superiority 
of England at that time was still very overpowering. 
It was a little less so than in 1850, but still it was 
preponderant. The United States and Colonies of 
England all had the English system of weights and 
measures, so this Commission, consisting of sensible 
men, might have thought: ‘We will go with the 
majority of the manufacturing people and adopt their 
weights and measures.’’ But when ‘they saw the 
English weights and measures and went into them 
they unanimously decided that the metric system 
was the only possible international system. In the 
metric system there is the same base ratio and divi- 
sions everywhere, so you have to learn nothing. It is 
the same base ratio as you use in calculation. I re- 
member in 1895 I had to give evidence before the Par- 
liamentary Committee on Weights and Measures, and 
I handed in a German school-book on arithmetic. 
The Committee said, ‘‘ How many pages are devoted 
to the metric system?” I showed them that on the 
back cover there was a note: ‘‘ Remember a hectolitre 
is too litres; a kilogram is 1000 grams.’’ The other 
things were so self-evident that it was considered 
unnecessary to say anything about them. 
The Commission instituted by the old Federation of 
German States submitted their proposals to the Reich- 
stag in due course; then came the year 1866, which 
delayed the introduction somewhat, but in 1868 the 
Act was passed that the metric system should be 
permissible from January 1, 1870, and compulsory 
from January 1, 1872. This disposes of the idea that 
the metric sytem can only be introduced in times of 
great commotion and so on. The date of the intro- 
NG, 2328, VOL. 93] 
duction of the metric system was decided upon long 
before anybody knew anything about the Franco. 
Prussian War, and was, therefore, introduced rather 
in spite of it than as a consequence of it. About the 
same time a Committee was appointed by the Eng- 
lish Parliament to report on the introduction of the 
metric system, and after hearing all sorts of witnesses, 
they reported in 1862 that ‘“‘in their opinion it would 
involve almost as much difficulty to create a special 
decimal system of our own as simply to adopt the 
decimal metric system in common with other nations.” 
Furthermore, if we did so create a national system 
we would in all likeiihood have to change it again 
in a few years into an international system owing 
to the increase of commerce and intercourse between 
nations.” 
More than fifty years ago the upshot was that the 
Committee said it would be a waste of energy to 
introduce a special English system because owing to 
the ever-increasing intercourse between nations the 
nations would be forced into the adoption of an inter- 
national system whether they lilked it or not. That is 
the real reason why the Decimal Association believes 
that the metric system is coming. It may be coming 
slowly, especially here in England—we cannot help 
that—but if you consider this point of view, that the 
international intercommunication is ever increasing, 
that the nations are becoming more and more de- 
pendent upon the produce of other nations, you will 
see—you must come to the conclusion that an inter- 
national system of weights and measures is desirable, 
and that the refusal of such a system will impede 
progress. 
What are the objections? The first that is made 
is to the decimal point. Owing to the base ratio 
being 10, and 10 throughout, there is no necessity 
to use a decimal point. For instance, anybody making 
drawings puts all the dimensions on the drawings in 
millimetres. That has two advantages. You need 
not put millimetres every time as you put feet and 
inches (’, "), and it avoids a lot of misunderstanding 
if the drawing has not been very carefully figured. 
1’ 1” is often taken for 11 in., 2’ 4” for 24 in., and 
all that sort of thing, but if you use millimetres you 
have not that difficulty. 
The decimal point objection is really non-existent 
because you always take the next lower unit if you 
find that what you want to express is less than the 
higher unit, and that is generally quite sufficient. 
The second objection taken is the size of the unit. 
That really is an argument that shows into what 
desperate straits the opponents of the system have 
reached to find an objection, because I cannot for the 
life of me see that the metre and the yard are so very 
much different. Nor are a half-kilogram and a pound 
so very unlike each other. 
The next thing is that the opponents of the com- 
pulsory introduction of the metric system say :— 
“Well, you have got all you want, you have per- 
mission to use the metric weights, the Board of Trade 
will verify them for you; they have the standards— 
so what more do you want?’’ That is just it. Do 
not these people see that in compelling manufacturers 
and traders to have two standards, one for home 
consumption, and one for dealing with metric coun- 
tries, they handicap the manufacturers and_ traders 
here? And there is another point of view. There 
was a discussion before the Institute of Inspectors 
of Weights and Measures on the metric system; they 
are the people who go about among all the trades- 
people and have to verify weights and measures, and 
they ought to know their business. One inspector 
said that ‘‘from the inspector’s point of view there is 
one point which advocates should not favour, and that 
