- Fuly 2, 1885] 
“ Well, the debates at which we have assisted prove to 
me superabundantly that such will always be the unsatis- 
factory issue so long as the meridian of any great nation 
is proposed. 
“Tn presence, then, of this difficulty, which on that 
supposition appears to me insuperable, the only solution 
which by its very nature will not excite burning questions 
of national jealousy is that of a meridian having a cha- 
racter of absolute neutrality. If the adoption of such a 
meridian were admitted in principle, I am certain that a 
discussion engaged in on the ground of pure science and 
directed according to the best conditions which such a 
ground is calculated to secure would soon lead to a 
practical solution. : 
“In such a discussion the arguments having any force 
should be, above all, drawn from science, the only source 
of truth alone able to enlighten us so as to guide us toa 
sound judgment and to a decision based solely on con- 
siderations of a purely scientific order. 
“Such a practical solution seems to me, moreover, to 
be suggested by what our honourable colleague, M. 
Janssen, told us on this subject. The principle of the 
neutral meridian once adopted, the conditions it would 
require to fulfil and the determination of its site would 
remain to be discussed. Of two things—one, whether the 
meridian should be exclusively oceanic, and so by its very 
nature it would be neutral ; or, second, whether it should 
cut some island, and in such a case there could be no 
obstacle, by means of an international diplomatic conven- 
tion, in the way of rendering neutral the particle of ground 
on which it would be proper to establish an observatory, 
which in reality would be confined toa very small affair— 
of these two solutions both of which would satisfy the 
conditions requisite for the meridian, from the double 
point of view of its character of neutrality and the de- 
mands of science, I prefer for my part the second. I 
confine myself to intimating by these few words how it 
would be possible to arrive at a practical solution, since 
at this moment I have to occupy myself simply with the 
adoption of the principle of the neutral meridian. 
“T conclude, then, by declaring that I shall vote in 
favour of the adoption of a meridian invested with the 
character of absolute neutrality ; and in doing so I hope 
thus to contribute my part to the end that our resolutions 
may bear the impress of independence which they require 
in order to impose themselves spontaneously and natur- 
ally, generalise themselves in the future and rally from 
the beginning the adhesion of men of science, without 
distinction of nationality, who at this hour await our 
decisions.” 
I have to add that before the vote M. Galvan, the very 
distinguished representative of the Dominican Republic, 
who had studied at Paris under our most eminent mas- 
ters, very cordially informed me that the attitude of 
France in this matter appeared to him to conform with 
that which the world was in the habit of seeing it take 
in all questions of general interest, and that it would give 
him such happiness once more to contribute in bringing a 
testimony of admiration to the nation—to the puissante 
initiale de Vintellectuelle, to use his own expression—by 
voting with France. 
As to the vote, it was according to our expectations, 
seeing that, as I have said, almost all the delegates had re- 
ceived instructions to vote for the meridian of Greenwich. 
The principle of the neutral meridian being rejected, 
we abstained from taking part in the discussion in the 
choice of the national meridian called to become inter- 
national. As we already said, we did not come to 
Washington to sustain a candidature, but a principle. 
Before the vote, M. Valera, delegate of Spain, an- 
nounced that he was charged by his Government to say 
that, in voting for Greenwich, Spain expressed the hope 
that England and the United States would accept the 
French system of weights and measures. This declaraticn 
NATURE 
201 
led Gen. Strachey to say that he was authorised to 
announce to the Conference that England had asked to 
join the Metric Convention. 
We cannot pass over in silence the part taken in this 
discussion by the eminent Foreign Associate of the Insti- 
tute of France, Sir William Thomson, who was then in 
America, and had very naturally been invited to our 
sittings. Sir William Thomson expressed his desire of 
an accord in regard to the meridian and the metrical 
system. The following are among the few words he 
spoke on this subject :— 
“T cherish the sincerest and most ardent desire that 
the delegates of France and those of the other nations 
who by this vote supported the previous resolution, will 
be able to adopt the resolution now before the Confer- 
ence. It appears to me that we have here to do with a 
sacrifice, and I am convinced that the honourable dele- 
gate of France who last spoke, M. Lefaivre, will clearly 
apprehend that there is no question of asking a sacrifice 
of France which she is not disposed to make. 
“Tn the admirable speech delivered by M. Janssen 
before this Conference (a speech I had not the pleasure 
and satisfaction of listening to, but which I read with the 
greatest interest) he declared that France was willing to 
make a much greater sacrifice than that now in question. 
The amount of sacrifice involved in changing certain 
usages is always more or less considerable, in view of the 
fact that it is impossible to say that such an innovation can 
be effected without derangement. It may, however, be 
asserted that the sacrifice France is prepared to make 
would be much more considerable than that ensuing from 
the adoption of the resolution now before us. 
“Tf the resolution relative to a neutral meridian had 
been adopted, all nations would have been called on to 
make the sacrifice involved in a change of meridian not 
yet determined, and the relations of which to the merid- 
lans now in use could not have been so easy as would be 
those of the meridian of Greenwich with the meridians at 
present employed. 
““T am of opinion that if the delegates of France could 
see their way to the adoption of this resolution, they 
would have no cause to regret it. 
“T highly approve of what has been said in regard to a 
common metrical system. My opinion on this subject 
is firmly established, and I shall by no means express it if 
the President thinks it would be inexpedient to enter on 
this subject ; but it seems to me that England makes a 
sacrifice in abstaining from adopting the metrical system. 
The question cannot, however, be presented under this 
form. We have not to consider here whether England 
would gain or lose by adopting the metrical system. 
“ Such is not the way of looking at the question, con- 
sidering that the adoption of the metrical system by 
England is a question restricted to her own convenience, 
to her own usages, and that whether she adopted it or 
not, her decision could not in any way affect other nations. 
It could result neither in advantage nor disadvantage ot 
other countries.” 
When the meridian of Greenwich was adopted, the 
Assembly considered that it devolved on it to define the 
principle according to which the longitudes should be 
numbered. Should they be counted in one single direc- 
tion in accordance with the almost unanimous opinion of 
the distinguished members of the Conference of Rome, 
or should they continue to be counted in the two opposite 
directions, as far as the anti-meridian? ‘The latter 
method was adopted. 
The method of counting longitudes east and west, 
starting from a central meridian—the method actually in 
general use—was evidently introduced and actuated by 
the use of national meridians. But when, instead of 
looking merely at one country in particular, the entire 
earth is contemplated, and it is desired to bring the 
general system of longitude into relation with a universal 
