All those things would disappear, and the work of taking out the prices of any quantity of things in length and weight would be done in a moment without any compound rules. Another important consideration was the question of calculations in ordinary life. The engineer felt the disadvantage most, because he was troubled with having to deal with such awkward figures as 30 square yards in a pole, and many other difficulties, whereas a cubic centimetre of water weighed 1 gramme, a cubic decimetre of water weighed 1 kilogramme, and a cubic metre of water weighed one metric ton, and given the specific gravity of any substance it was only necessary to multiply the capacity by the specific gravity to obtain the weight. When he introduced his Bill in 1904 he presented an enormous number of petitions, and when he moved the third reading he summed them up as follows:-"The town, city, and county councils which presented petitions represent a population of eight millions; 50 chambers of commerce have petitioned, as well as 42 trades unions, representing 300,000 members; 60 teachers' associations, inspectors of weights and measures in 80 districts, and 30 retail trades associations." Finally, it might be of interest if he stated that they were promised the support of 400 members of the House of Commons in the present Parliament whenever a Bill was introduced.

Mr. THOMAS PARKER stated that at one time he had the metric craze and advocated the use of the metric system, but after carefully studying the subject he discovered it was a delusion and a mistake. It was absolutely untrue to say that British measures could not be scientifically used. The inch, the square inch, and the cubic inch had been in use practically for all time, the only difficulty that had arisen being that there was no unit of weight based upon the linear measure of the inch. If a cubic inch of water was adopted as the unit of weight, a much better measure would be obtained than the metre.

Mr. ALEXANDER SIEMENS stated that the commencement of the author's paper reminded him of the old story of the solicitor, who, in instructing counsel, said there was no case, and, therefore, he was to abuse the plaintiff's attorney. Sir Charles absolutely ignored the fact which he (Mr. Siemens) brought forward some years ago, that the metrical system really originated with James Watt, who said that any rational person would see that the decimal division was the proper thing to adopt. Professor Smith, of, Birmingham, put it in a different way when he said that the system of weights and measures ought to be systematised on one basis of ratios throughout. That embodied the great advantage of the metric system. The second condition was that the besis ratio must be 10, because all arithmetic was based on 10. A great deal had been heard of the good old English weights and measures, but in his opinion that was a fallacy. Up to 1824 the pound avoirdupois, which had been used since time

immemorial, was not legal. It was casually mentioned in the Weights and Measures Acts of 1760 that it was 7,008 grains, but in 1824 that was altered to 7,000 grains, while the Act contained in its preamble words to the effect that, owing to the chaotic state in which the weights and measures of Great Britain were, some imperial measures must now be created. Even the Act of 1824 did not accomplish everything, because it allowed heap measures in bushels, and the present system was really introduced in 1834. It was not the fact, as had been stated, that the United States were using exactly the same measures as England, and they ought therefore not to be ranged together. The Parliamentary Committee appointed in 1861, stated in their Report that it was no use to try to introduce a purely British system, because in a few years the country would be compelled to adopt an international system, and two changes would then be made instead of one. Even if he were prepared to say (which he was not) that the inch was better than the centimetre, it was impossible now-a-days. The German Customs Union appointed a committee in 1861 with orders to invent a national German system, but soon after commencing their labours they reported that it was an impossible task, because it was certain that with all the means of inter-communication between various countries, an international system must be adopted. In that respect only two systems could be considered, the English system and the French system, the latter of which had a systematised base ratio of 10 all through, while the former had all sorts of ratios. A good deal had been said about the duodecimal system, but the division was not duodecimal. For instance, he would like to know how many ounces there were in the third of a pound. The question of the compulsory introduction of the metric system reminded him of a very shrewd remark made by an Inspector of Weights and Measures, who was against compulsion because if shopkeepers had two sets of weights and measures on the counter they would 'know perfectly well what would happen to the unwary customer. The great stalking-horse trotted out against the metric system was the textile industry. He remembered that, when giving evidence before the Select Committee on Weights and Measures in 1895, he was asked the following question by Mr. Whiteley: -"Taking the cotton trade, a standard make is what is called 79 inch 37 yards 8 lbs. shirting, which is known all over the world wherever that shirting goes at the present time. It is known as of certain weight, length, and width; would it not in some way damage the reputation of that shirting if those figures had to be re-calculated in all the markets of the world?" He was sorry to say he was taken aback at the time, and made an answer which was not worth reproducing. But subsequently he turned the figures into metric measures, and found that the 79 inches were 2.066 metres, the 37 yards were 34 3 metres, and the 8 lbs were 375 kilogrammes;

so that the textile industry were practically using metric measures only they did not call them so.

Mr. GEORGE MOORE, in referring to the textile industry in Lancashire, said he did not know a single manufacturer or spinner who wanted, or who used the metric system; but he knew there were a few merchants in this country, who did not weave or spin, but who imported European yarns into this country, and agitated for Parliament to make the metric system compulsory, so that German and French yarns could be introduced into England, whereas Lancashire people wanted to sell Lancashire cloth and yarn out of the country. Lord Belhaven had stated that an International Conference was held in Paris in 1900 for the purpose of simplifying the number of yarns, but he did not state that it was the fifth International Conference which had met since 1870, and that the Conferences bad come to five different decisions. At the present time the English system of textile numbering was universal. One of the greatest arguments used by the advocates of the metric system was that an international system was required; they had it in the textile industry. He had been to the United States twice during the present year to examine the question of weights and measures reform as between England and the United States, and was therefore exceedingly surprised to hear Mr. Siemens state that the same measures were not used in this country as were used in the United States. The only different measure in use in America compared with England was the measure of capacity, the Americans still using the old ancient Anne gallon, which England discarded nearly 100 years ago. Mr. Siemens had also stated that James Watt conceived the idea of the metric system, and was in favour of its use. James Watt was in favour of the metric system, but was strongly opposed to the metre. A good deal had been said to the effect that, once people used the metric system, they never gave it up. During the last few years Messrs. Willans and Robinson, of Rugby, had been held up as the leading firm of manufacturers in this country using the metric system, whose example should be copied by the other manufacturers of the United Kingdom. He had received a letter from that firm, dated November 27th, 1906, stating that they would be glad to join the British Weights and Measures Association with the object of assisting in the fight they were making against the compulsory introduction of the metric system into this country. They were satisfied, after a long practical trial, that such advantages as were to be obtained by the use of the metric system in an English machine-shop were too dearly purchased. In the ordinary way they were making new lines of work to English dimensions, and were satisfied that the adoption of the metric system had cost them a great deal in gauges and special tools without affording an adequate return. Messrs. Sellars and Co., the Whitworths of America, after giving the metric system a thorough trial had also

A

Dr. FREDERICK ROSE stated that one objection made to the metric system was that the multiplicity of new terms would prove very confusing. Germany had used the metric system for forty-three years, and, as a matter of fact, only a few terms were used. In the measures of length, only the metre, the centimetre, and the millimetre were practically used, the further sub-divisions above or below being scarcely ever used. In capacity, the principal measures were the litre and hectolitre, and for the subdivisions below it was only necessary to say half litre or quarter litre. It was most remarkable that in many parts of Germany the old local names for measures were still retained, when a pound of goods were asked for, 500 grammes being given, and so forth. He also took exception to the way in which the tables of population in favour of the British measures had been tabulated. Looking at the question from an educational point of view, in his opinion the children in the elementary schools of the country were handicapped by having to learn the unfortunate system of weights and measures in vogue, and were behind, compared with the children of other nations, one or one and a-half years in their education.

Major E. H. HILLS, R.E., C.B., remarked that advocates of the metric system in the course of their arguments lapsed almost insensibly into an argument in favour of the decimal system. The author had quite rightly pointed out that the two should be most rigorously distinguished. Almost all the arguments which had been used in the course of the discussion in favour of the metric system, were equally capable of being applied in favour of the introduction of a decimal system based on the English weights and measures. The only argument which remained was that of uniformity with the rest of the world. For instance, the argument used with regard to the waste of a child's time in education, had nothing to do with whether the child learned metres or yards as the unit; it had to do with our complicated system of weights and measures, which they were not concerned to defend in all particulars. He thought the argument in favour of the present free system, where everybody was allowed to use those weights and divisions which most suited their particular trade, was the best for a free country. For scientific purposes, there was no doubt that the decimal metric systems presented very great advantages. If the textile industry was against the change that was quite enough to render it altogether out of the question, because one-sixth of the population of England depended for their livelihood upon that trade; and even supposing it were desirable on other grounds such a change could not be arrived at in the face of the determined and united opposition of so large a proportion of the population and wealth of the country.

Mr. EMERSON Dowson did not think sufficien attention had been given to the evidence given by Sir Robert Giffen before the Select Committee in 1905 as to the enormous extent of English foreign trade with countries using metric weights and measures. Sir Robert gave it as his deliberate opinion that great loss was suffered by the traders of this country on that account. thought the comparisons of population which had been given were misleading, and considered it would have been a fairer method to adopt if the figures had been based on the trade that was done with the various countries enumerated.

He

Mr. R. K. GRAY said the assumption was often made that only the metric system was used in France and other countries. He was the managing director of a company employing 900 men in France and about 3,000 in England, and from personal experience he would like to state in the most positive manner that it was a great mistake for any Englishman to believe that the metric system was solely employed in France. For instance, if anyone went to the market place he purchased things by the litre; but wine was sold by le barrique" (225 litres); "le feuillette" (134 litres), le demi setier" (litre), and le chopine" (litre). People who were not accustomed to the terms of the country did not know what they meant. The old term of the barrel was still used because the barrel was the most useful size for the trade in wine. The same remarks applied even

to

-

Government departments. He remembered asking a clerk in the Post-office how much a registered letter would cost, and received the reply "Fifteen," meaning fifteen sous. The proper answer for the clerk to have given, would have been 75 centimes, but he talked in sous, because it was far more convenient. In the practical application of the measures in France, the people could not detach themselves at all from the natural selection of the proper measures for certain trades. If what he said was correct, why should the people of England make compulsory measures which, in the country of their origin, were not actually in use to-day in common life, although it was 112 years ago since they were inaugurated?

Sir CHARLES WATSON, in reply, said the statement had been made that, in the education of children a great deal of time was wasted in teaching them weights and messures. An American had very carefully taken out from the school schedules in the United States the exact time that was devoted to weights and measures, and found that in a school curriculum of eight years, 6 8-10ths weeks were devoted to the subject, and thereupon said he could not understand how, out of seven weeks. a year could be saved in the education of a child. The measures in the United States were exactly the same as in England with the exception of the gallon. In former times, two gallons were used in England, one for dry

measure and another for liquid measure. England retained the dry measure gallon and made that her sole standard, while America adopted the liquid measure as her standard,

On the motion of the CHAIRMAN, a hearty vote of thanks was accorded to Sir Charles Watson for his interesting paper, and the proceedings terminated.

Mr. W. TERTIUS ROWLETT (Leicester) writes :I am sorry that the lateness of the hour prevented me from taking part in the discussion on the metric system last evening, and shall be obliged if you will allow what I had to say to appear in the Journal.

The meeting in 1900, at Paris, of the International Association for the Unification of Yarn numbers, was alluded to by some of the speakers. I am a member of the permanent committee of that Association, and took an active part in the meeting at Paris. The decision was in favour of the metric numbers of 1,000 metres per kilogramme and per number, and the general opinion was that the only hindrance to its adoption was the abstention of Great Britain and America. I advocated that, by way of preparation, every spinner should put the metric number by the side of his own special number on every ticket and invoice; because during forty years' experience I have never found a foreign spinner who did not understand metric counts, whilst most British spinners were ignorant of them. The author spoke of the textile industries, and especially the silk trade, as not having adopted this system; but he was apparently unaware that the British Silk Association, in 1902, joined with all other countries in accepting the international numbering of 1,000 metres per kilo and per number for silk yarns, and added to the convention many suggestions that, when other numberings were used, their metric equivalent should appear also.

The gentleman who spoke on behalf of the cotton trade stated that all the textile traders of this country were opposed to the adoption of the metric system; but this is a mistake, as he is only entitled to speak for the cotton branch. Many of the other branches would welcome the change, as it would obviate the necessity of making goods to two different standards, and allow articles to be used for export without having to be made specially.

It seems somewhat singular that the cotton trade, which uses decimal calculations more than any other branch, should object to the introduction of the metric system, but they give the following reasons:

Many say their numbers are so well known throughout the world that there is an advantage to keep them; they further say it is impossible to spin metric counts on their machines; but this is quite erroneous. It is absolutely impossible for anyone, even with the very best machinery, to spin exactly to the count required, and therefore a variation of number above or below the count is accepted. This makes a variation of half a number, which is a much greater difference

As to the advantage they gain, the foreigner is verging more and more towards the metric numbers. In the present year, I was speaking to a German cotton spinner about English numbers; he did not understand them, but when I mentioned metric sizes, he knew at once. The only change necessary for a cotton spinner would be in reeling his hanks 1,000 metres, instead of 840 yards; or if they were found too heavy, then in half hanks of 500 metres. But this would only be required for yarns in bundles, as a very large proportion of the exports are sold in cops, the form in which yarn leaves the machines.

The foreigners continue to use British cotton tumbers because they buy so much British yarn, but this complicates their calculations very much when casting. The continental cotton spinners are making great strides ahead, and are principally spinning metric counts, and, other things. being equal, these will be bought in preference to British yarns, so that our spinners will be likely to feel their competition strongly when the season of bad trade sets in.

With cloth the change to metric measurements is very simple, the only alteration necessary to the loom being the reed or slay, a comb through which the warp threads pass before reaching the shuttle.

The speakers who advocated the decimalization of the inch spoke for lineal measure only, and have nothing to offer in weights, or measures of capacity, with a decimal relation to the inch. The British Weights and Measures Association, which is the centre of this agitation, in order to retain the inch and pound avoirdupois, propose that the weight of a cubic inch of water should be called 1 ounce, 28 ounces would then weigh 1 pound, and 10 pounds to the gallons, but at the very outset this proposition breaks away from a decimal system. The only complete decimal system in use still remains the metre one, and the attempt to introduce any other system instead, would cause at least as much difficulty.

Mr. AUGUSTE M. THIERRY writes:-It was rather a pity that Sir Charles Watson in an otherwise excellent paper on the past history of the metric system threw cold water on a committee of savants which certainly comprised some of France's finest intellects of the time. It was natural that speakers in the National Assembly should with all their might push the new order of things, and, considering the times, there was no indecent haste in endeavouring to replace the chaotic system of measures of an infamous past.

The author referred several times to the decimal

division being the only one applicable to the metric system, but this is not so, for 's, 's, ths, ths can be just as easily employed, and in fact are so. Then as to the cubing of 8 being easier than that of 10. Surely this is an error of the author, for nothing could be easier than tens to deal with in this connection.

It was mentioned by Sir Charles that none of his metric friends could give him "the cube or capacity of an hectolitre." I am sorry, for a simple calculation reveals it at once:

Cubic metre 1,000 litres.
Hectolitre = 100 do.

therefore the capacity of the hectolitre is the 10th part of a cubic metre or 100 cubic decimetres.

He said the prefixes deca, hecto, kilo, could be mixed up with deci, centi, milli; I can only say that such mistakes are next to impossible, for the former refer to multiples (units), the latter to submultiples (fractions).

I cannot admit that the gain would be all in favour of the foreigner when the change comes; the immense advantage to ourselves is inconceivable for the majority, and hence the antagonism. I venture to say that not twenty in this room use decimal fractions for their computations, and it is only among those that the full understanding of the advantages of the metric system can be self-evident. This is the reason why the permissive act in favour of the metric system is useless; it is a case of the educated minds La minority-forcing a majority for its ultimate good.

The inch as a unit is utterly impossible, for where are the stepping stones upwards, the multiples 10 inches, 100 inches, 1,000 inches; fancy stating the distance to Land's End in inches! no, this is conservatism walking backwards.

Mr. R. K. Gray referred to old French names of measures being used to this day in France, thereby leading one to infer that the metric system was ignored there in many places, but he did not say that the old names applied to the new measures, and therefore they did not in any way destroy the value of the existing metric system there.

Mr. BENNETT H. BROUGH writes to supplement Mr. Gray's remarks on the persistency of the old units in France, by directing attention to the official circular recently issued by the French Minister of Commerce, a translation of which appeared in the current issue of the Engineering Magazine (p. 268). It showed that the penalties imposed by the Act of 1837 had not proved sufficient to prevent the use of the old units, and contained a pathetic appeal that metric units should be used. In Great Britain, where the use of the metric system was permitted by Act of Parliament, it seemed unsportsmanlike that the metric advocates should desire to have all who did not accept their views, fined or imprisoned. Every gaspipe would have to be torn out of our houses; all existing technical literature would be rendered useless; every retail trader would have to buy a new set of weights;

and the working man would be fined or imprisoned if he asked for the half-pint to which he was accustomed. The writer had had experience in mine surveying work in Germany, and even there old units persisted. Shafts were measured in Lachters of 6 feet; horizontal lengths were measured with centimetres on one side and, for actual use, Hanoverian feet on the other, and the compass used was graduated into 24 hours, eighths, and sixteenths of eighths, so essential for rapid work was the principle of continual bisection, which was the basis of practical geometry and of mechanical engineering practice.

TRADE WITH INDIA.

II.

EXPORTS OF INDIAN MERCHANDISE. While imports of merchandise increased by 6.6 per cent., the value of the exported merchandise increased by only 2.66 per cent., or 410 lakhs, but this followed larger increases in past years. Indian exports consist mainly of raw agricultural products, and in these there is a continual rise and fall, following on prosperous or adverse seasons. Rice represents 63 per cent. of the total value of food grains exported from India, and 11.8 per cent. of the value of all Indian produce. In 1905-6, the total exports of rice to foreign countries receded by 13 per cent. in quantity, but only 4.9 per cent. in value, the exportable surplus of rice depending on the success or failure of other food crops throughout the country. Japan is the largest purchaser of Indian rice, Ceylon and the Straits Settlements coming next. Of the western countries, Germany would seem to be the foremost purchaser.

On the average of the last five years, the value of the wheat exported has represented 39 per cent. of the exports of all food grains, and 6:4 per cent. of the total value of all merchandise exported. The crop of 1905-06, more particularly in the United Provinces, was very seriously injured by frosts, and the effects are very clearly marked in the contraction of the exports to less than half the figure attained in the previous year. It is important to note that in 1904 India was the largest contributor to the wheat supply of the United Kingdom. But in 1905 it fell back into the third place, Russia and Argentina being first and second. The British crop, too, rose considerably in 1905. The shortage in wheat and enhancement in prices necessarily restricted the exports of wheat flour.

Passing by provisions and spices, we come to tea, a produce of special interest to us at home. The area under cultivation has almost doubled within the last quarter of a century, and the out-turn is now over 222 million lbs., 90 per cent. of this being derived from Bengal and Assam. The ascertainable production has increased much more rapidly than the area, 210 as against 85 per cent., in addition to which is to be taken into account the quantity consumed in the country itself, which is supposed to amount to

7 million pounds per annum. The quantity exported in 1905.06, about 884 lakhs of rupees in value, represents a record. From another point of view, it is interesting to note that the joint stock capital engaged in the industry amount to over 14 millions sterling, about £12,000,000 being registered in England and £2,250,000 in India. In addition to this, there is, of course, a large but unknown quantity of private capital also engaged. The labour employed is returned at 552,999 hands, or about one to the acre.

Of this considerable out-turn the United Kingdom still takes the lion's share, (whether for consumption or re-export), though the quantity exported thither (over 166 000,000 lbs.) is less than it was two years ago. On the other hand, the direct exports to Canada have developed from 31 to 3.6 per cent. The shipments to Russia have also developed satisfactorily, the general tendency being no doubt in the direction of direct shipments to countries formerly supplied through British ports.

Comparing the progress of the tea trade of India with that of Ceylon and China, the two other principal sources of supply, it is significant that India has increased her exports by 44 per cent. and Ceylon by 55 per cent., while China's exports of black and green tea have declined by 31 per cent., and of brick and dust by 10 per cent.

Manganese ore represents nearly 82 per cent. of the value of all exported metals and manufactures other than hardware, the balance consisting of brass, iron, and copper manufactures. The trade in manganese, which has virtually come into existence in the last ten years, received a great impulse in 1905.6, in consequence of Russian anarchy in the Caucasus and Donetz mines. The exports from India accordingly rose to 316,694 tons, an increase of over 75 per cent. At the same time the price in Europe has gone up by about 50 per cent.

Opium is a product of exceptional interest just now, and it is noteworthy that the exports of the native drug have been continuously declining during the past twenty years, from an average of about 35,000 chests in 1885 to 15,043 chests in 1905. The total value of the exports of opium. both from Bengal and Bombay, decreased by 10.8 per cent. in value, but even now it foots up to 947 lakhs of rupees, which will give an idea of the amount eventually to be made good in the Indian Budget, should the recent anti-opium edict from Peking mean "business," or have any practical effect. As to the unmanufactured tobacco exported from India, this consists largely of leaf intended for "hookah" smoking, and not for manufacturing processes. The British duty is prohibitive as regards this article. Indigo, once a flourishing industry, has decreased to a remarkable extent, as is well known, under the competition of "synthetic" indigo. The drop in value has been from 535 lakhs of rupees in 1895, to 58 lakhs last year, a decline of 89 per cent. Of course, this bas been accompanied by a large corresponding decrease in the area under cultivation. Much of the ground