July 29, 1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
95 
selling oats, 16 measures for selling barley, and 9 for 
selling butter, and 4 measures for selling Hour. In 1864 
a Bill was brought in for the establishment of the me¬ 
trical system ; that Bill was opposed by the Government 
of the day, but they were defeated, and Government 
promised that if the Bill was turned into a permissive 
Bill they would take it in hand. But although it was 
dcgal to use metric weights and measures, if they were 
found in a person’s possession that person was liable to 
be prosecuted. Professor De Morgan, in his evidence 
before the committee, said, “I cannot put in language 
the advantage to the people of using the same measure.” 
The extreme simplicity of the metric system and the 
ease with which it was acquired had gradually recom¬ 
mended it to the world, and it was now used compulsorily 
in France, Belgium, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Porto 
Rico, Italy, Roumania, Switzerland, Chili, Brazil, 
Mexico, the Argentine Confederation, Peru, etc., and 
on the 1st of January next it would come into operation 
throughout all the States of Germany. There were 200 
millions using this system compulsorily and 200 millions j 
more were using it permissive^. Of the exports from 
this country only 25 per cent, were exported to countries ! 
using English weights and measures, and 66 per cent. 1 
were exported to countries using metric weights and | 
measures. The introduction of the system would have 
also an important bearing on education, from the ease | 
with which it was acquired. After stating that the Bill 
Rad the support of the Chambers of Commerce and ' 
various other influential societies throughout the king- j 
/lorn, Mr. Smith continued, he understood that the Board 
of Trade would oppose this Bill, and no doubt they 
would be told that it was a difficult question to deal with, 
and that its adoption would give rise to serious inconve¬ 
nience. No doubt there would be very considerable in¬ 
convenience. But he must most distinctly say that they 
did not want a permissive Bill, because in no country 
could such a change in the law be enforced unless the 
measure were compulsory. We had for long had an 
imperial bushel, and yet there were other local bushels 
used throughout the kingdom. Mr. Cobden, in his last 
speech upon the subject, spoke strongly in favour of the 
French system as compared with our own ; and his au¬ 
thority ought to be much relied on. What the advocates 
of this measure asked for was simply that there should 
be one system of weights and measures throughout the 
land; and what they looked forward to was the time 
when there should be one system only of weights and 
measures throughout the world. 
Mr. B. HorE moved that the Bill be read a second 
lime that day six months. He also desired to see one 
■system of weights and measures throughout the land; 
but it was the English system, and not the French sys¬ 
tem, that he desired to see adopted. The system which 
this Bill proposed to introduce would lead to very 
serious inconveniences. The metric system was good 
for multiplication, but it failed in division, especially in 
the natural division of halving and quartering. He was 
assured on very high authority that in Holland, though 
the new system had been introduced, the old practice 
still prevailed. The Standard Commission recommended 
that the metric system, if adopted, should be permissive 
.and not compulsory; that any Bill to make it permissive 
.should be brought in by the Government, and that it 
should deal widely with the question as a whole; but the 
Bill flew in the face of every one of those recommenda¬ 
tions. If such a measure became law, it would necessi¬ 
tate the whole country going to school again upon the 
most elementary ideas of material life; it would throw 
all leases and engagements into confusion; it would' 
puzzle farmers north, east, south and west with ares, 
metres, and kilometres, and their decimal parts; it would 
give dishonest traders increased facilities for cheating 
their customers, and it would cause infinite misery and 
inconvenience to all the poorer classes of our fellow- 
creatures. Sir J. Herschel, in a letter to himself (Mr. 
B. Hope), in 1868, said,—“As respects a reference of 
| our fundamental units to a natural standard, our na¬ 
tional system is anything but the haphazard, indefen¬ 
sible thing it is usually represented to be. The polar 
' axis of the earth is a much better natural unit than the 
quadrant of a meridian through Paris, and, dividing 
this into 500 million inches, our actual imperial foot 
; comes within a thousandth part of twelve such inches, 
or a geometrical foot. I have by me two foot-rules, one 
by a good optician, the other purchased at a good shop, 
and none the worse for wear, which differ from each 
other by more than that quantity. Taking for the defi¬ 
nition of our ounce the weight in air of 1-lOOOth part of 
such a geometrical cubic foot of distilled water at 62° F. 
(our standard temperature), according to the rate de¬ 
clared in the 5th Act of George IV., our actual imperial 
ounce differs from such a geometrical ounce by only 
l-7000th part. But if, as some later experiments seem 
to have shown, that rate is slightly incorrect, then 
according to these experiments (that is, according to the 
best of our actual knowledge) the weight of that bulk of 
water in vacuo , at a temperature of 72° in place of 62°, is 
with absolute precision identical with our actual impe¬ 
rial ounce, also weighed in vacuo. As for our measures 
of capacity, our half-pint is the measure of ten ounces of 
water.” 
Mr. Stevenson, in seconding the amendment, pointed 
out that there was only one pint, one pound, and one 
yard throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, 
throughout the United States of America, and wherever 
the English language was spoken; and they were told 
that notwithstanding that the metric system had been 
forced into operation in France by the power of a cen¬ 
tralized Government, the foot-rule divided into twelve 
inches was still of frequent use in the workshops there. 
Sir. C. Addekley said that the question was whether 
the disadvantage of getting rid of the old system would 
more than compensate for the advantages attending the 
adoption of the new one. He was of opinion that 
although it might give a new language to commerce, it 
would bo of inestimable advantage to the country to 
adopt the metric system. It had already been adopted 
in the colonies, and by Canada in particular, and what 
could be done by our colonies could certainly be done 
here. He denied that the metric system had broken 
down; but even if it had, it did not touch the main 
! question, whether the commerce of England did not de- 
[ mand a simple and intelligible language common to all 
I the nations with whom we traded. Surely, if the com¬ 
merce of the world demanded a world-wide language, 
England should not be the country to stand in the way. 
There were two points chiefly affected, namely,, the home 
trade and the commerce of the world. In this country 
a stone meant a different weight in respect to almost 
every different description of article, and a hundred¬ 
weight meant 112 lbs., 120 lbs., 128 lbs., and even 140 
lbs., in different localities, and according as it was used 
with respect to different commodities. In his own dis¬ 
trict, a bushel meant thirty-two different measures. Then 
with regard to general commerce, was it of no import¬ 
ance to England to use the language of commerce 
adopted by all the other nations of the world? I he 
French system was as near perfect as any one could be, and 
it had been generally adopted, though he admitted that 
a philosopher like Sir J. Herschel objected that the metre 
was not the best form of unit. 
Mr. C. Fortescue said that it was impossible to ex¬ 
pect that any legislation could take place on the question 
this session. The real question was whether there 
should be a compulsory or permissive measure. In his 
opinion they had not yet attained that state of things 
which the Committee contemplated as a condition ot 
legalizing the metric system—namely, the sanction and 
conviction of the public. The examples of I ranee an 
of British India would not justify a hasty decision ; the 
evils which formerly existed there having been lui moie 
