Men and Measures

Two systems are face to face throughout the West—the Imperial system resting on long custom and on convenience, and the Metric system on an assumption of science and on revolt against the past. It has been shown that the system which pretends to be the only scientific one, and the easiest, is a failure even in France; but there, like the republic which gave it birth, it is, under the influence of patriotism or national pride, strong for attack abroad while in a state of anarchy at home, worrying manufacturers and evaded in trade whenever police-force fails to have jurisdiction or deems it prudent not to prosecute.

The one makes men fit the measures however inconvenient; the other makes measures to fit those who have to use them. The one attacks; the other apposes a passive resistance.

Let us take a general view of the system attacked.

1. General View of the Imperial System

The Imperial system of Weights and Measures rests on principles quite as rational and scientific as those of the Metric system, and it is much more practical.

All its series are derived from the English talent, a weight two-thirds of the Roman-Alexandrian talent which was derived from the royal cubit and foot of ancient Egypt.

The original system, of at least ten centuries ago, was as follows:

Length.—The foot was the measure of the side of a cubic vessel containing 1000 Roman ounces of water.

The furlong became at a very early period a length of 40 rods = 220 yards.

The mile, originally 5000 Roman feet, became 5000 English feet, divided into 8 road-furlongs.

Surface.—The acre was one-tenth of the square furlong.

Capacity.—The wine-bushel was the cubic foot, the measure of 1000 ounces of wine or water. 1/8 of it was the wine-gallon = 1728/8 or 216 cubic inches.

The corn-bushel was 1-1/4 cubic feet, the measure of 1000 oz. = 62-1/2 lb. of wheat; 1/8 of it was the corn-gallon = 270 c.i.

Weight.—The pound was 16 Roman ounces = 6992 grains. Its multiples were the 16-lb. stone, the wey of 16 stones, and the true cwt. of 100 lb.

This excellent system has become, after many disturbances, the Imperial system, only differing from the old English system in the following points:

1. The slight rise of the pound (by 8 grains) to 7000 grains.

2. The rise of the wine-gallon to 231 c.i. as now used in America.

3. The unification of the wine- and corn-gallons (the latter still used in America at the standard of 268·8 c.i.) in the Imperial gallon = 277-1/4 c.i. = 10 lb. water.

4. The fixing of the mile at 8 roods or field-furlongs of 220 yards.

5. The optional decimalisation of several series:

(a) Of the furlong at 10 chains, of the square furlong at 100 sq. chains, and of the acre at 10 sq. chains.

(b) Of weights by the 10-lb. gallon and the 100-lb. cental.

(c) Of the ton-register of 100 cubic feet = 100,000 ounces of water.

6. The disappearance of the Troy pound. The Troy ounce must shortly disappear; the 112-lb. cwt. and its stone-divisions are optional.

The Imperial Standards are now:

Length.—The Foot, approximately the side of a cubic vessel containing 1000 ounces of water. The yard of 3 feet or 36 inches.

The Furlong is 220 yards, either—

10 chains of 66 feet or 22 yards, or 40 rods of 5-1/2 yards.

The Mile is 8 furlongs = 1760 yards.

The Nautical mile is 1000 Olympic fathoms = 6080 feet or 2026-2/3 yards.

Surface.—The square furlong is 10 acres; the acre is 10 sq. chains, or 4840 sq. yards, and may be divided into 160 sq. rods.

Volume.—The cubic foot is approximately 1000 ounces of water, = 62-1/2 lb. The Ton-register is 100 cubic feet.

Weight.—The pound, of 7000 grains, is divided into 16 ounces of 437-1/2 grains.

The Gallon of water weighs 10 lb.

The Cental is 100 lb.

The Ton is 20 long Cwt. of 112 lb.

Capacity.—The Imperial gallon = 277-1/4 c.i. contains exactly 10 lb. of water, or approximately 8 lb. of wheat. It is divided into 8 pints containing 20 oz. of water or 16 oz. of wheat. The Bushel, of 8 gallons, contains 64 lb. of wheat.^[58] The Quarter is 8 bushels, which is approximately the quarter, either of a short ton, 20 centals, of wheat, or of a freight-ton of 40 cubic feet.

The principal units, foot, pound, gallon, are connected by their common origin in the talent of 1000 ounces of water. Corrections are needed for accuracy since the pound was increased in Elizabethan times by a little more than 1 per 1000 from its original Roman standard, and since the bushel and gallon were increased by 3 per cent. from the original corn-measure to the Imperial standard.

The co-related units, foot, furlong, acre, pound, gallon, are multiplied and divided by the factors found by long use to be the most convenient to the people. When no other influence determines the secondary units, the usual factor is 8, or its double, its half, its quarter.

Any unit may be decimalised for purposes of calculation, and several series have alternative decimal series. Thus—

Itinerary and Land measures were decimalised three centuries ago by the chain-series.

The Ton-register of 100 cubic feet, used throughout the world, has a complete decimal series of divisions.

The pound-gallon-cental series are fully decimalised, from the 100-lb. cental down to the septem, 1/1000 of a pound.

A decimal series of weights from the pound upwards is perfectly lawful. It may be confidently expected that it will before long replace for most purposes the stone and long-hundredweight series imposed in the fourteenth century, and fought against ever since.

Apothecaries’ weight, abolished by the Medical Council half a century ago, still lingers in the Board of Trade list of standards. Mint-weight is still on the Troy system. The half-crown is one grain less than an Imperial half-ounce. It may be hoped that it, and other silver coins, will before long be brought exactly to that standard. Already the bronze penny is one-third of the Imperial ounce.

Further improvements will be made. Some adjustment of the inconvenient 112-lb. hundredweight with the cental series, that of our ancient hundredweight, returned to us from America, will probably be effected. In the meantime we know that our system is progressive.

It may not have such a scientific appearance as that of the metric system. But we must not be dazzled by the word ‘scientific.’ Our system has its series related with sufficient exactness to have practically as much unity as the metric system; and it is convenient. Let us distinguish between science and pedantry.

2. The Propaganda of the Metric System

I have read many books and many articles and letters in newspapers and scientific periodicals advocating the compulsory use of the metric system, optional amongst us since 1897, but which no trade, industry or profession will adopt, and I have almost invariably found that the writers knew the metric system imperfectly, and always that they knew their own very badly. I have found their advocacy illustrated by examples of problems in imperial weight and measure which showed defective instruction in the art of cyphering and supported by statements which were misleading and only to be charitably excused on the ground of ignorance.^[59] Too often opponents of their propaganda are sneered at as wanting in scientific knowledge, business experience, and common sense.

The propaganda of the metric system is effected, from abroad by diplomacy, and from within by—

1. Calling it ‘antiquated,’ a term which might be applied to Law, to Religion, to Marriage, to Property, and other ancient institutions.

2. Calling it ‘irrational,’ when it has that great reason which comes from custom, convenience, improvement in recent times.

3. Calling it ‘unscientific,’ when it joins to popular convenience the option of decimalisation, whenever that is found convenient, in addition to the alternate decimalisation already established in several series.

4. Putting forward as current certain weights, such as the Troy pound, long ago obsolete.

5. Putting forward as legal measures trade-units, such as the cask, the sack, &c., used for convenience in trade, as much in metric countries as with us.^[60]

6. Putting forward, as necessary, sums and calculations which a decently taught schoolboy would laugh at.

7. Ignoring all that is convenient in our system and all that is inconvenient in the metric system.

8. Ignoring the satisfaction of the people of the United States with our system, even when retaining the old wine-gallon and corn-gallon.

9. Ignoring the resistance of the French people to the metric system after a century of education in it and of police-constraint.

10. Urging us to follow the example of other countries that have adopted it, but omitting to find out whether the peoples of these countries, from civilised Germany to barbarous Haïti, use it—so far as they do use it—otherwise than under compulsion. It is the governments of these countries, not the people, that have adopted it, always in the name of Science; and the day police-pressure were taken off, the old system would return, or, at the least, the decimal series would disappear.

11. Threatening loss of foreign trade, when our trade weights and measures are so well understood by foreign manufacturers and merchants that they find no difficulty in placing their goods on our market, and are so well known that many foreign manufacturers find it impossible to use metric standards, those of England being alone accepted in most of the markets to which British manufactures are exported.

12. Calling opponents prejudiced, unprogressive, unscientific, wanting in business experience and common sense.

Such are the arguments used in the propaganda of a system which would make much of the past life of our country unintelligible, send most of its manufacturing machinery to the scrap-heap, dislocate trade for years and bring about in our country the same struggle that is still to be seen in France between the law and the people.

The claims of the metric system are exactly on the same basis as those of the Esperanto language. If the metric system were made compulsory, an energetic body of Esperantists might only have to adopt the metric plan of campaign to get their ‘simple, rational, scientific and international’ language made first optional, and then, when it was found that no one would use it, compulsory, while the use of the antiquated and unscientific English language would be forbidden.

What will be the result of the conflict between the two systems prevailing about equally in the greater part of the Western world? On the one side North America, the United Kingdom and its colonies in the Eastern Hemisphere; on the other side the Latin nations of both hemispheres with the principal Teutonic nations whose governments have imposed the French system on them. Russia and several other countries are awaiting the results of the conflict. But it is a siege rather than a conflict, for the attack is entirely from France; and though it has the inherent weakness of its system being a failure in the country of its origin, yet the defence has the weakness of its people being so badly instructed in their system that they cannot repel the invasion, and have even allowed the enemy to take up a legal position in their own country. The colonial policy of England, the simple plan of respecting custom, of not interfering needlessly, is very different from that of France. British colonies that were French or Dutch keep the laws and customs that we found there, and amongst these their systems of weights and measures. If these were convenient they remained, trade bringing a gradual adoption of the English system mixed with local measures; and as these were on a system more or less common to all the Western nations before the French Revolution, weights and measures gradually harmonised. But the policy of France is distinctly aggressive; its colonies must have French laws and the metric system, and other countries also must be induced to abolish their systems and replace them by the system which a century of police-action has not succeeded in making the French people adopt, and which they evade in every possible way.

Why the propaganda of the metric system should have had any success in England appears a mystery—yet it is intelligible to anyone who has observed the contagion of opinions, even the wildest. England has been fascinated by its presentation as scientific and international. This is a scientific age, and every new thing that can be puffed as ‘scientific’ is likely to take with people unprepared to criticise the science. I have seen the council of no mean English city induced by the word ‘scientific’ to vote in favour of a petition to make the use of the metric system compulsory; the few members, not one-tenth of the whole, who dared to oppose the resolution being called unscientific, unprogressive, &c.

Repeatedly repulsed, the French siege will not cease its attacks; England, and America also, must be prepared to meet them.

Although the English-speaking peoples have a system with which they are satisfied, unfortunately few know its principles; and, in weights and measures as in other matters, an inferior article well advertised supplants an old-established and satisfactory article that is not advertised. If the French people have not revolted long ago against the system imposed on them by the Paris bureaucracy, it is because it is thoroughly advertised as scientific, international, and as conquering the world by the superior civilisation of the French nation. They have been trained to make almost any sacrifices for the glory of France, and so long as they can evade the decimal and other inconvenient portions of the metric system they suffer this patiently for the satisfaction it gives to their patriotic feelings.

But their government must go on conquering, or they may strike against a system which brings in no more glory; as other peoples may when they see that the English-speaking peoples of the world refuse to be persuaded into accepting it.

Here is the weak point of the attack. And when the English-speaking peoples, those of the British Empire and America, are as well instructed in their good system as the peoples of the metric countries are in the bad system imposed on them (and which they evade for all the good teaching of it), the assailants will raise the siege.

We could reply: Amend your own system and make it acceptable to your own people before you ask us to put aside a system which we find convenient and which is founded on better principles than ours. Our system has been carried to all countries; it is decimal wherever decimalisation is convenient; its international unit is the Ton-register of 100 cubic feet, or 100,000 ounces, as old as the first civilisation of the world, as the civilisation which established the Meridian mile used by your seamen as by ours. We reject an artificial system founded in hatred of the past, and only kept up in its native country by police-force. In the name of decimals you want us to abolish our pound, and use a kilogramme which your own people will not use. It should be enough for you that we have given your system a denizenship by the abuse of which we have been greatly annoyed.

3. The Reform of the Metric System

The defence must be active; then the attack would cease, and the French people, seeing its failure, would demand a reform of the system imposed on them; the other nations suffering under it would follow their example, if indeed the Teutonic peoples did not begin the reaction.

Modifications would be demanded, rendering the metric system less inconvenient for manufacturers, for trade, for the everyday business of life.

The metric standards would be retained, but the decimal system would be optional, left principally for scientific purposes. The divisions and multiples would be in harmony with the customs of each people, usually in sexdecimal series.

For France, the système usuel of Napoleon’s compromise would be revived. Incomplete a century ago, it could be rendered complete by the following arrangement of the metric system, suitable both to Northern and to Southern France.

1. The metre to be divided optionally either into 3 feet of 12 inches, or into 4 spans of 9 inches or 12 digits; 2 metres to be a toise and 10 toises a perch; 100 toises or 10 perches to be a centenié (furlong) and 800 toises or 8 furlongs a mile = 1741-3/4 yards. The meridian mile would be 926 toises or 9-1/4 cables.

2. Land to be measured by the square toise, 1/25 of an are; 1600 square toises to be an arpent of 16 vergées metriques or boisselées, each 10 toises square, = 4 ares.

3. The livre, = 500 grammes, to be divided commercially into 16 ounces of 8 drachms; and for medicinal purposes, the drachm to be 8 oboles of 8 grains. Grammes and decimal fractions of a gramme could be used for scientific purposes.

4. The hectolitre would be divided sexdecimally, into 4 boisseaux, of 4 gallons = 6-1/4 litres. The litre would be divided into 2 setiers or chopines, 4 half-setiers, and 32 ounces.

The equivalence with imperial measures would be approximately:

Similar arrangements could be made in other countries, the units being made in accordance with the old custom of the people, but always on a metric basis so that international conversion of measures would be easy and accurate.

Envoi

With this suggestion of compromise, of entente cordiale, instead of constant aggression by the French system against that of the British dominions and America, I close the last chapter of my work. I took to it twelve years ago for useful occupation in the leisure of approaching retirement from active life in a great seaport. But as I carried out my design I found the verge of the wide subject recede with every advance I made; every fresh field I worked showed another field beyond. A renewal of life for study, travel, observation, would be needed to enable me to carry out at all completely this history of the human mind in one of its most interesting and important aspects. But age warns me to bring my work to a close, leaving its correction and completion to younger men. Yet I hope I have been able to show the principles of unity and of diversity; and apparent confusion becomes clear when the keys of metrology are at hand. The trend of the human mind is always the same; for weights and measures are a part of the daily life of every man and woman. The rise of measurement, the naturalisation of weights and measures brought by commerce, even by conquest, when they are found convenient, the varieties caused by changes of circumstance, the deflections under the constraint of ill-advised rulers, the effect of long custom in reconciling to new standards if they can only be arranged conveniently, the shifts by which they can be made endurable, the tendency to resume the old trend along another path—all these traits of human nature are shown in this study. One thing is certain, that a wise government sanctions the measures which fit its people; its business is to maintain unity in the inevitable variety; and it should distrust the pretensions of science to dictate to men and women, to trade and manufacturers, the measures they shall use. Whether in theocratic ancient Egypt or in revolutionary modern Europe, science is a good servant of Humanity, but a bad master.