344 Weights and Measures Question Reconsidered. [June, 
and we get the unit of weight. It is plain that the intro- 
du( 5 tion of such a system would do away at a stroke with the 
so-called “ compound ” rules of arithmetic, and with the 
“ tables ” so laboriously instilled into children — a considera- 
tion of no small weight in these days of School-Boardism. 
It would, beyond all doubt, greatly reduce the amount of 
work in commercial houses. 
I have heard it maintained, by highly competent judges, 
that were a decimal system of weights, measures, and money 
introduced, our great bankers, merchants, and manufacturers 
might dispense with one clerk out of every five. It is, fur- 
ther, beyond a doubt that the adoption of the metric standard 
would much facilitate all transactions with the countries 
where it is already established, i.e., all Europe, except 
Turkey and Russia. 
But the great question remains, how would it aCt in retail 
trade in those transactions which, though individually small, 
come home to every one in the routine of daily life ? Here 
I must confess that there are some features of the metric 
system, not necessarily involved in its two fundamental prin- 
ciples, which I look upon with distrust, as likely to work 
badly in the hands of the great body of the people. If we 
look at our traditional system of weights and measures we 
find that their names are short, — with few exceptions mono- 
syllabic, — inch, foot, yard, mile ; grain, drachm, ounce, 
pound, ton ; gill, pint, quart, &c. Now if we glance down 
a table of metric weights and measures we find different 
grades expressed by words of three, four, or even five syl- 
lables. Some of these names, too, are annoyingly like each 
other, and liable to be confounded together, as decimetre and 
decametre, decilitre and decalitre, decigramme and deca- 
gramme. The fad is that the French commissioners made 
a great mistake in selecting “ classical ” names for their 
weights and measures, which they considered might be 
adopted by other nations without translation. 
Further, the numbers used in our system as fadtors and 
divisors are mostly small, and easily dealt with in the mind. 
Two, four, six, eight, or ten ounces of anything are mag- 
nitudes easily remembered. Nor, if we know the price of a 
pound, is it difficult to reckon mentally what is the price of 
each of these quantities. But suppose we take their ap- 
proximate metric equivalents, 58, 116, 174, 232, or 290 
grammes : here are numbers much less readily carried in 
the memory. 
In calculating the price, too, there is the same or a greater 
difficulty. If 1 lb. of “ coffee as in France ” costs a shilling, 
