A FEW WORDS IN FAVOUR OF THE DECIMAL BUT AGAINST THE METRICAL SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENT; AND AN ENDEAVOUR TO SHOW HOW ALL THE ADVANTAGES OF THE METRICAL SYSTEM MAY BE OBTAINED WITHOUT GIVING UP THE ENGLISH STANDARDS. By F. C. PENROSE, M.A., Fellow. Read at the Ordinary General Meeting of the Royal Institute of British Architects, November 30, 1863. It will be, no doubt, remembered, that a bill was introduced last session into parliament for altering our weights and measures by the adoption of the Metrical system, of which the second reading was carried, but owing to the press of other business it did not proceed further. Mr. Ewart however, the proposer of the bill, signified his intention of re-introducing it, and as the legislature, by allowing the second reading of the bill seem to have adopted the principle of the measure, it becomes to us one of very great and practical importance, and one which the Institute is bound fully to consider. One step has already very properly been taken by our Council in petitioning Parliament in a general way for the adoption of the Metrical system: doubtless under the impression that this system offered the only hope of escape from our present anomalous methods, and the only practicable way of obtaining the advantage of decimal computation. If this indeed seemed to be the case, I should not now ask you to re-consider the question: but if, as I venture to hope, I shall be able to point out a plan which will secure almost all the advantages which are looked for, and avoid a very great part of the inconveniences which would inevitably attend an alteration of the standard by which we have been accustomed to work; it will be for you to consider whether a petition going more fully into the question may not be addressed to the legislature, who will no doubt be willing to give it the consideration they have invariably shown to this Institute. There may be doubtless a difference of opinion as to whether any change whatever is desirable:that is, however, much too wide a question to be discussed in a short paper, and I must beg to be understood in what follows, not so much to be advocating change, as to be taking it for granted, that we stand committed to some change, and to be pleading for the improvement of the system to which we are accustomed, rather than the adoption of the French metre, which would entail very great difficulty upon the class of artizans even more than on ourselves, and which, although it promises ultimate advantages, would be attended with serious drawbacks. The objects to be obtained are: (1) Uniformity of system. (2) Decimal computation. (3) Agreement with the French standard, which has obtained a great hold on the Continent of Europe. I should refer to the evidence taken before Mr. Ewart's Committee for arguments in favour of uniformity of system, if it were not that we meet with too many annoyances in our own practice to render such arguments necessary. What with strikes, chaldrons, sacks, hods, loads, bags, &c., perches of various lengths, ropes, cords, chains, ells, nails, hands, &c., and in weights, the septenary scale, pounds troy, apothecaries, and avoirdupois, and several varieties of stones, we must often wish for a more uniform system, such for instance, as would be attained if every measure of capacity were reckoned in gallons, every measure of length in feet, and every weight in pounds avoirdupois, and of course such other terms as are necessary to express the multiples and sub-multiples of these standards in the simplest possible form, or any other uniform and general system. It may also be asserted that any thing which is found troublesome to beginners, requires more effort even to adepts than what was obvious from the first. It may not amount to much in a single instance, but it does ultimately tell. I will instance the unnecessary confusion introduced by measuring land by the chain, rod, yards, &c., and superficial extent in most other things, in feet. We use indeed the land measure for our rod of reduced brickwork, but is it not evident that the square of 100 feet by which we measure the areas of roofs and floors, &c., is an idea more immediately grasped in the mind, and in fact gives less trouble in computation? One is led to remark in passing, that it seems strange that we have not rejected a number so troublesome to deal with as 272, and which after all is not the correct square of 16 ft. 6 in. for the simpler number. It can hardly be necessary to say any more in favour of uniformity; and for any further argument I must refer to the Blue Book. In what follows, I must confine my remarks to the question of mensuration, leaving coinage, weight, and capacity alone; not that there is more difficulty connected with these questions, and I grant that in a full consideration of the subject they cannot be disunited, but because mensuration is a subject which belongs to us in a peculiar manner, we may, I think, consider it by itself. I will, therefore, briefly consider the relative merits of decimal and duodecimal computation as applied to measurement, and which no doubt admits of argument on both sides, and premise that after the full consideration, which I hope will be given to this question, should you be strongly of opinion that the advantages lie in favour of the duodecimal scale, it would be, I apprehend, the duty of the Institute to petition Parliament, not to sanction any alteration in the direction of decimal systems; but I cannot but think that an opposite conclusion will be arrived at, and I believe that few, if any, who have fairly tried the decimal system and know its power, will feel much hesitation on the subject. It is confidently asserted by Mr. Ewart's Committee that none of the nations who have adopted the Metrical system have had any desire to give it up. This I fully believe, but obviously owing to its decimal form, and not to the peculiar standard called the metre. Let us for a moment leave out of our consideration our English methods. Most of us are familiar with the decimal coinage of France, Switzerland, and Italy, and with the divisions by thirty and sixty which prevail in the coins of Germany, and which is essentially the same as the duodecimal system. Can we doubt for one moment which of the two is preferable, and which entails the least trouble on travellers. In favour of the duodecimal scale it is urged that as 3 is a lower number than 5, more numbers can be divided by an unit with 12 sub-divisions, than by an unit with 10 sub-divisions. This advantage * I will merely observe that it would be easy to conciliate our measures of weight and capacity with the Metrical system, in a manner nearly analogous to that which is suggested further on for the measure of length, by making a very minute change in our own standards. For 10 kilogrammes 22:06 lbs., and 100 litres 22:01 gallons. It will be obvious that an alteration, which would be practically inappreciable in our weights and measures, would render them readily convertible into the Metrical system. An objection has been, I think, very properly made against the use of the decimal system in the lowest denomination of coinage, weights, and measures of capacity, but which does not apply to measures of length. This may be easily met by keeping the lowest denominations on the binary scale as we have it at present. There is strong reason for believing that farthings are more convenient in use than centimes, and quarter ounces than five gramme weights, and for purposes of calculation the binary scale may at once be translated into the decimal. |