THE INTRODUCTION OE METRICAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 627 
ounce of 437'5 grains, and the fact that the ounce is not a simple multiple of 
the grain, are grave defects,” is sufficient to establish the necessity for further 
change, and the only question is, as to the nature of the change to be made. 
Shall we try again to patch up our own system, or shall we adopt an entirely 
new one ? 
The only new system that we can hope, or indeed could desire to have substituted 
for the one with which so much dissatisfaction has been expressed, is the metrical 
system, which has already received the sanction and approval of scientific and 
commercial men in almost every part of the civilized world. 
In deciding to change our system for the metrical system, however, we do 
not necessarily imply that we are wholly dissatisfied with the one or entirely 
approve of the other. It is a great mistake, not unfrequently committed, to 
endeavour to discredit our system, in the hope of bringing about a speedy 
change to another, by ascribing to it defects that do not belong to it, and at 
the same time to extol the advantages of the metrical system by claiming for it 
more than it is entitled to. 
It is sometimes represented that our weights and measures are not accurately 
defined, that they are liable to variation, and therefore cannot be relied upon, 
that in fact their construction is not based upon scientific principles, and that 
they are indefinite and uncertain. 
On the other hand, the metrical system is sometimes represented as having a 
scientific basis, which gives to it in all its details a greater degree of certainty 
and accuracy than can be claimed for our system. 
Now these are entirely erroneous notions, and it is important that no argu¬ 
ments in favour of the metrical system should be founded upon such false 
assumptions. Originally, it is true, there were no well-defined standards to 
which our weights and measures could be referred for verification, and no 
scientific means by which they could be reproduced in the event of all existing 
measures being destroyed. When a troy grain had no better definition than 
the weight of a grain of wheat, when the inch was defined as having the length 
of three barleycorns, the foot the length of a man’s foot, and the yard that of 
the king’s arm, there was indeed uncertainty enough in these measures. And 
even when, in course of time, the natural standards originally referred to were 
superseded and more reliable ones adopted, much still remained requiring further 
improvement. 
In the latter part of the last century, the reformers of the great French Revo¬ 
lution, in reforming the then existing systems of weights and measures, adopted 
three fundamental propositions on which to base their new system. 
1. That some natural object or phenomenon, presenting an unvarying 
measure of extension, should be taken as the unit from which all their measures 
should be calculated. 
2. That measures of extension, of capacity, and of weight, should bear a 
definite and simple relationship to each other and to the fundamental unit. 
3. That the different denominations of weight and measure should be mul¬ 
tiples and submultiples of each other by ten ; in fact, that the system should be 
throughout a decimal system. 
In seeking for a natural standard to be used as the unit of measure, they 
took the metre, not, as it would appear, because it was found or considered to 
be the most suitable measure that could be fixed upon, but because it was the 
ten-millionth part of a quadrant of the earth’s meridian. As it has since turned 
out, no advantage resulted from taking this particular measurement as the 
initial standard or unit, and in fact the first proposition might have been 
omitted without any practical disadvantage. 
In this country we have pursued a somewhat similar course to that adopted 
by the French reformers, in reforming our system and framing that which has 
