BRITISH WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 223, 15 June 1921, Page 8

BRITISH WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

AND THE METRIC SYSTEM AN INTERESTING REPORT The following is a brief account of the report on compulsory adoption of tho metrio system in tho United Kingdom submitted by tho Metric Committee appointed by the Conjoint Board of • Scientific Societies. The account was 1 written by the secretary and approved by the chairman for the information of the Press, but has never been before the Metric Committee:— “Faced with a demand in certain ■ quarters for tho compulsory adoption in ■ Great Britain of the metrio system, the ' Conjoint Board of Scientific 'Societies appointed a committee to report on, not tho theoretical advantages of tho met- ' ric system which are indispiited, but the necessity of making it compulsory for all intents and purposes. The British system of weights and measures ' has grown unscientifically almost from prehistoric times, and the system itself as well as the use which has been made of it is unnecessarily complex and wasteful of time nnd arithmetic. Its defects, indeed, are so obvious that there has been for many years strong propaganda in favour of its eradication. Bodies such as the Decimal Association have assumed that the metric system is undeniably superior, and have perhaps made light of the very real difficulties of a change. With every increase in complication of technical processes and the establishment of each new scientific industry, it has been almost natural to work in the metric (system, which became so well known in our factories and machine shops during tho war that the time was undoubtedly favourable for a radical change in our units of measurement. Nevertheless, the committee of tho Conjoint Board have, after long and careful consideration, confirmed ths opinion expressed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh’s committee on commercial and industrial policy after the warthat it is not desirable to make the change compulsory, except perhaps in one or two special trades. It cannot bo denied that many scientific men, as well as propagandists, consider this verdict thoroughly reactionary It is, therefore, worth whilo to examine the question with some care. The Metric Committee point out in their preamble that the terms of referencethe advisability or otherwise of compulsory adoption—removed the question out of the purely scientific sphere, and mado it necessary to consider the effects in common lifo ns well as in technical manufactures and industries. "They point out the great distinction between measuring and making to measure, the latter being in ordinary life far more common than tho former. Tn the greater part of common manufactures and small trades it is a case of making, often rather roughly, to a few given dimensions or of weighing and measuring to one or other of a relatively few units. The British units are not well related, and especially they rarely have decimal relations but such as thevare they are well established and perfectly standardised. When ers epeak of confusion in British measures they must mean either complexity in relations, or confusion itu use, for there is no confusion in the measures themselves, os there was between the different varieties of foot and pound in Central Europe little more than half a century ago, or as there is to-dav in th® varying values of the mamid in different parts of India. The British pound and foot of unvarying standard are thoroughly established in the world, and. no one has the slightest difficulty in knowing what they mean. But thev lend themselves ill to calculation, owing to the fact that tho various units are not inter-related decimally, which makes them totally unsuitable for nnv scientific work, and far from convenient in anv technical'work, such, for example, as the Simula process of making nn a photographic developer. AU this is common ground. Nevertheless, the committee camo almost unanimously to the conclusion that for the ordinary purposes of life tire metric system is not superior to the British system, since it dors not lend itself readily to the ingrained habit of subdivision to halves and quarters, a habit which no decimal nvsteni is strong enough _ld conquer. Moreover, the committee believe that the advocates of a change have not paid sufficient attention to material difficulties. The trouble of changing all the weights and measures in tho country wouM.be trifling compared with the difficulty of providing al] the sacks, barrels glasses, jars, boxes. etc., which would be renuired if all sales were to he made in metric weights and measures from a given ditto. They point out that the inconveniences of n, change, of system am felt in rnch individual transaction. nnd that the quantity dealt in is relatively unimportant.. The retail trade in email quantities would feel the weight of the change. Tt does not appear to the committee that nnv changes desirable in the units of weight in the foreign trade require tho abolition of the avoirdupois pound as the unit, of weight in tho internal retail trade of the country. A change in the rail of length immediately interferes with all standard riz.es nnd fits, which would inevitably be perpetuated almost indefinitely alongside the new. For rasons such as’ these, which are fully set out and. discussed in their report, the commil too recommend that ihe British system of weights nnd measures he retained in general use in the United Kingdom. but that serious attention should be given io their decimalisation and to Dm elimination of those which do not lend themselves readily to this purpose. They suggest, for example, the abolition of the pole, furlone. nnd the leag-uo. and the limitation of the link and chain to use in the determination of area: the abolition of the square rod or perch and the rood, all areas of land being in acres and decimals. or in square feet. Tn the measures of weight they propose the abolition of the grain, drachm, stone, quarter, and cwt. of 1121 b., and the complete abolition of apothecaries’ weight. Tn the measures of capacity, they suggest- the general use of tho gallon.' with the customary subdivision into quarts and pints for retail U5O; the abolition of the nock, bushel, quarter, chaldron, and barrel, and the substitution of measure by weight. Finally, and this recommendation is as important ns any. they insist on a more sensible nro of the .remaining measures, by confining ca-Ji statement of measure to one unit—7s Inches, for example, instead of f> feet 3 Inches —nnd the more extended use of the central and thousand-weight, which , arc already much employed in certain industries. Tn one trado only, that of drugs and fine chemicals, do the committee recommend the immediate comnillsor- adoption of the metric system. They recognise to the full, however, the inadequacy of the British system in all ■ scientific nnd technical processes, and they suggest that reform in those should bp brou.gh.t about gradually, by agreement , on the part of Government Departments, large companies, nnd contractors, to , issue specifications nnd invito tenders in the metric system. j

"A draft of the committee's renori was submitted tn the constituent societies repreMUiW on the Con ioin t Board, who have dulv criticised the report. Ths nnrelv scientific societies, inch ns the Phvsien.l Focietv. the Faraday Society, and the Royal Society of Edinburgh, express »frong dissent from the recom-mendn’i-on; while the technical societies, such as the electrical engineers, the en(.(neevs and shipbuilders in bcofltand. the Institute. of Metals, Mining Engineers. Naval Architects, and othei-s. are in general agreement.”