Journal of Geomancy vol. 2 no. 3, April 1978

{61}

THE HISTORY OF THE METRIC SYSTEM

by Rupert Pennick.

Work began in earnest, in France, on the metric system of measurement, in 1789, and by the year 1791, the French Academy of Sciences was ready to define the metre as 10⁻⁷, or 1/10 000 000 (one ten millionth) of the earth’s polar quadrant through Dunkirk, Paris and Barcelona.  The adoption of the metric system in France was officially dated as 1795.  Chaptel further developed the system in 1801.  The standard for the metre was originally a special platinum–iridium bar, but this was not accurate enough for modern requirements.  So a more sophisticated method was evolved.  The method of determining the metre is now 1 650 763·73 (one million, six hundred and fifty thousand, seven hundred and sixty three point seven three) times the wavelength in vacuum of the orange–red radiation emitted by transition between two particular energy levels of the krypton-86 atom.  The standard Kilogramme is still however to be found in platinum–iridium in the form of a cylinder housed at Sèvres, near Paris, in the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. 

To consider more deeply the efforts to establish the metric system during the Revolutionary period we must note the struggle between the Commune of Paris, led by Hébert and Chaumette – both audacious ultra-radicals – and the rather more conservative Convention of France.  The Commune of Paris {62} of 1792 was completely in the hands of Hébert and Chaumette.  The Père Duchesne, widely read by the workers, was edited by Hébert, and both he and Chaumette reigned in the city hall and drew their strength from the masses in the streets of Paris whom they knew how to incite and hurl at their enemies.  It was these men who for a while dominated the Convention.  It was the Commune which also forced the Convention to establish an anti-priest calendar which discarded Sundays, Saints’ days and religious festivals, and in their place set up novel and entirely secular divisions of time. 

The month was divided not into weeks, but into decades or periods of ten days.  Every tenth day was to be a rest day.  The names of the months were changed to indicate natural phenomena, July becoming Thermidor, or period of Heat; April becoming Germinal, or budding-time; November becoming Brumaire, or period of fogs.  The Year of Liberty began on the 21st day of September in the year 1792.  To the Revolutionaries the world was young again, the metric system and such things as the new calendar gave them great hopes of a new world set free from the chains of tradition. 

In a further measure the clocks and watches were changed.  The day was divided into 10 hours, and the 10 were divided and subdivided into smaller units.  The calendar was made obligatory.  Difficulties arose and watchmakers were driven to add another circle to the faces of their watches.  One circle carried the familiar set of figures, the other carried the new.  Outside forces and the rise of Napoleon limited the first adoption of the new system to only twelve years.  During the following years the metric system remained in partial use, then in 1840 the Paris Mint struck a medal to commemorate the basic derivation of the metre, one 10 millionth part of the Earth’s quadrant, and the final legal adoption of the metric system in France.  The legend on the medal is:– A TOUS LES TEMPS A TOUS LES PEUPLES.  CONVENTION NATIONALE D’HOMME DU 14 THERMIDOR AN 1 DE LA REPUBLIQUE FR.  LOUIS PHILIPPE I ROI DES FRANCAIS 1 JANVIER 1840 USAGE EXCLUSIF DES MESURES DECIMALES LOI DU 4 JUILLET 1837. 

So we see here that this final legal adoption of the system was made during the reign of a king of France, namely Louis Philippe I, who was in fact the last king of France that ever reigned.  True, Louis Napoleon subsequently became Napoleon III, but he ruled as an Emperor rather than a king.  It is also of note that several years before the first French Revolution the king who was subsequently to die on the scaffold, Louis XVI, had shown great interest in reforming the system of weights and measures then in force.  English mathematicians were invited to join a conference on the subject, but refused.  Perhaps cooperation might well have speeded up the adoption of the metric system in Gt. Britain by almost two centuries. 

There have been, and still are, many critics of the metric system.  Its main advantage lies however in what will soon be Universal adoption and therefore a common system, requiring no conversion, throughout the world.  Obviously other systems might well be equal in efficiency, but they would no longer have any chance of being accepted by all nations, whereas the metric system has every chance of being accepted world-wide early in the 21st century. 

Unlike those pseudo-patriots who claim some god-given merit for feet, pounds and pints, I claim no great advantage for the metric system other than that which I have just stated.  I quite willingly present some of these anti-arguments and leave you the reader to consider whether they will convince you that we should remain out of step with 95% of mankind. 

Joseph A. Seiss, who did research in the 19th century on the Great Pyramid, gave the following list of objections to the French metric system.  Surely nothing more comprehensive could be found. 

“The real objections to the French metric system, which is admitted to have originated in atheism (in which we believe the baking of bread and the serving of milk did not originate), may be summed up in the following statements, which we repeat for the common benefit: {63}

In these ‘Objections to the French metric system’ there are admittedly a number of sound points, but once again I can merely counter with the plea of Universal Adoption.  From another standpoint there are obviously as many rather stupid observations against the metric system as there are sensible criticisms. 

I think it is of interest to note that as late as the 12th of February, 1978, Patrick Hutber in the Sunday Telegraph, continued his attack on the Metric System.  On that date he stated that “The admirable survey conducted by the Gallup Poll for the B.B.C’s. Nationwide programme about road signs.  This showed that 71% of the public wanted to keep the mile, with a clear majority in its favour in every age group and every social class.  It also showed – encouragingly for this campaign but less encouragingly from the point of view of education – that less than half the population knew what a kilometre is.  (Who was it said it was the distance your car travelled while you were changing a mile to kilometres?)”. 

All I can say about this attitude expressed in a leading paper is that it is less than helpful in a world requiring greater understanding amongst all peoples. 

I wonder if these anti-metrication types would like to change the electrical standards of the Ohm, Ampere and Volt, as fixed by the Board of Trade, pursuant to the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, Section 6, which appear in an Order in Council published on pages 4931–4933 of the London Gazette No. 26545 and dated 24th August, 1894.  It appears to me that it would be an advantage in the search for truth if the critics of metrication studied a little history. 

The main argument against the metric system appears to be that change is a bad thing and that old systems are necessarily best, but as knowledge increases so change should be quite a natural consequence.  Let us take as an example the ‘First Meridian’.  Ptolemy made the first meridian pass through the Insulae Fortunatae in the Canaries (about 15° West), then the most {64} westerly land known. 

In the 16th century the Dutch made it pass through the Peak of Tenerife in the same group.  Mercator made it pass through Del Corvo, in the Azores (about 30° West), because in his time the magnetic needle suffered no variation there.  In the 17th and 18th centuries, all nations made it pass through the eastern extremity of Ferro in the Canaries, and later some started from the western extremity of the same island.  Subsequently European countries mostly made the first meridian pass through the chief observatory in their respective countries.  In this way ours was accordingly Greenwich. 

With the introduction of railways and telegraphs, the system of Standard Time has come into vogue, with the consequence that the meridian of Greenwich may now be looked upon as the international starting-point. 

The advantage of the meridian of Greenwich is that on the other side of the world it falls almost entirely across the Ocean.  The fact therefore, that the day of the week differs on each side of the line only inconveniences ships and aircraft passing over that line. 

It should be realized by everyone that no attempt to justify the metric system by its original definition is being made, but I am sure a summary of its advantages, and historical detail, is appropriate at this juncture. 

The superior and decimal system is based on the same principle as existed among the Babylonians 4 000 years ago, namely a relationship between the measures of extension, capacity and weight.  It has been used by British scientists, electricians, pharmacists and the ‘yarn’ trades for around 100 years.  Decimal coinage has been adopted in this country during the present decade.  The close of the last century will always be noted for the acceptance of the International Metric System of measures and weights by the people of practically all civilized nations except the British; the coinage of monetary units alike in weight and fineness (although generally differing in name) in eleven European countries; the introduction of the British Sovereign as the gold unit in Indian coinage; the almost universal employment of the Greenwich Meridian; the change by all nations to Greenwich or Standard Time. 

To those with a patriotic bent I would like to remind them that although the metric system was first taken up by foreigners it was originally suggested by an Englishman James Watt (1736–1819), or should I say a Scotsman?  Anyway he was British and he became interested in developing a form of metric system during his early years as a maker of mathematical instruments.  So we can pride ourselves with the thought that we might have been first in the field if only science had triumphed over stupidity. 

It is also interesting to note that the old London or Roman mile was 1000 paces; and that the old English mile was of 10 furlongs each of 10 chains, and the chain was equal to 10 fathoms.  In the fifteenth century, the yard was approximately equal to the length of a pendulum vibrating seconds of mean time, namely 39·14 inches; approximately 1 metre. 

There are so many examples of the difficulties which arise through using the ‘old’ system of measures and weights that it might be thought any sane person would have greeted the metric system with shouts of joy, but unfortunately this is not the case; so hopefully that a conversion to saner ways may still be achieved, I intend now to give some examples of these difficulties which have caused worry to children and adults alike, for worry’s sake.  The 19th and 20th centuries might well have been far less of a strain for those engaged in mathematical calculations if Gt. Britain had adopted the metric system at the same time as France. 

EXAMPLES

Historical. The Weights and Measures Act of 1824 (5 Geo. IV., Chap. 74), by section 4, enacted that the Standard Brass Weight of One Pound Troy Weight, made in the year 1758, should be the standard measure of weight (The Troy Pound was first legalized in 1495) and it was subdivided into ounces, pennyweights and grains, so that 5 760 grains made one Troy Pound, and the Avoirdupois Pound was 7 000 similar grains.  This standard Troy Pound was destroyed in the fire at the Houses of Parliament on 16th October, 1834.  {65}

In 1855 an act (18 & 19 Vict. Chap. 72) was passed, and narrated in the preamble that the standard Troy Pound having been destroyed, in future (by Sec. 4), the standard weight for reference should be the Avoirdupois Pound of 7 000 grains and the 1824 act, inasmuch as it relates to the Troy Pound being restored was repealed (sec. 1).  In 1870, the Standards Commission recommended the abolition of Troy Weight.  In the same year it was found that only a few towns had copies of the standards.  In 1878, the Weights and Measures Act, 1878, (styled the Principal Act) repealed all provisions in previous acts and enacted:– “The Avoirdupois Pound shall be the only standard measure of weight, and all other weights shall be ascertained from it.  1/7 000 (one part of 7 000 parts) of the Avoirdupois Pound shall be a grain, and 480 of such grains shall be a Troy Ounce.  All Imperial Weights (and therefore including the grain) shall be deemed to be Avoirdupois weights, except the Troy Ounce.  All articles sold by weight shall be sold by Avoirdupois weight, except that gold and silver and articles made thereof, also platinum and other precious metals, “may” be sold by the Troy Ounce, or by any DECIMAL PARTS of such ounce.  After 31st December 1878, all pennyweights should be expressed as decimal parts of the ounce.  The term decimal includes, as is usually the case, centesimal and millesimal parts (Schedule 1878 act of Parliament).  The Troy ounce is ‘heavier’ than the Avoirdupois Ounce, in the proportion of about 80:73 (namely 192:175); but, where authorized, the Troy pound is ‘lighter’ than the Avoirdupois Pound in the proportion of about 82:100.  As the Dominions of Canada, Australia (except South), New Zealand, South Africa (except Natal), Ceylon and Newfoundland, retained the Troy Pound as it stood in England in 1824, not taking into account the fire of 1834 and the new act of 1878, the old joke still applied to these Dominions that a pound of feathers weighs heavier than a pound of gold. 

Finally, I would like to know how many advocates of the retention of the ‘unwieldy’ system in preference to metric system, would like to work out these problems, mainly for children, without the use of an electronic calculator. 

HARROW SCHOOL.  Find the value of 74 tons 16 cwt. 3 qrs. 19 lbs. at £84. 6s. 8d. per ton. 

A tradesman mixes 8 lbs of tea at 3s. 6d., 10 lbs. at 3s. 8d., 12 lbs. at 4s. 2d., and 10 lbs. at 4s. 6d., and sells the mixture at 4s. 8d. per lb, what does he gain out of the whole quantity? 

If a brick measures 8 in. by 4 in. by 2½ in., how many are there in a stack 24 ft. long, 6 ft. wide and 5 ft. high? 

A truck of coals containing 6 tons 9 cwt., colliery rate of 21 cwt. to the ton, costs 20s. at the pit’s mouth; 7s, 3d. for carriage to Harrow station, and 1s. for hire of truck per ton of this weight; and for carriage from the station to Harrow 3s. 6d.  per ton of ordinary weight.  Find the whole cost. 

WINCHESTER COLLEGE – ELECTION (For boys over 12 and under 13 on June 28). 

What will be the cost of a carpet 2 ft. wide, at 6s. 9d. per yard, for a room 25ft. 4 in. long, and 21 ft. 4 in. broad?  Also find the cost of paper for the walls, 1 ft. 8 in. wide, at 4½d. per yard, the height of the room being 15 ft. 

(for boys over 13 years on July 1).  Multiply 1 ac. 1 ro. 1 po. 1 yd. 1 ft. 1 in. by 30. 

ETON COLLEGE – FOURTH FORM.  Reduce 7 cwts. 3 qrs. 10 lbs. 8 oz. to the fraction of 2½ tons. 

A certain box is 3 ft. 6in. long, 2 ft. 3in. wide, and 1 ft. 4in. high, find (1) the contents of the box (2) the cost of covering both ends with velvet at 7d. per sq.ft. 

and finally remembering all these problems were set about 100 years ago:–

It is proposed to cut a tunnel under the Straits of Dover at a cost of 10 million pounds.  Suppose the working expenses to be 40% of the fares and milage, what must be the income to pay 71/3%, on the cost of the tunnel, to the shareholders as promised by the prospectus; what must be the weekly receipts to pay this dividend?
CONCLUDED ON PAGE 56. {56}

Perhaps if the metric system had been adopted completely during the last century, the tunnel might have been built for the £10 000 000, and we might not be in the chronic financial difficulties which have beset us for the last quarter of a century.  FINIS.