system has been forced upon most of the European countries by bureaucracies, and, as has been pointed out, “no people has ever been asked for its assent; even the French did not adopt it (so far as they have adopted it) until they were compelled.” But, after all, they made good bargains—order replaced chaos. Any one system must be better than a host of conflicting ones. Still, regiments of officials controlling peoples accustomed to being dragooned in yielding to the decrees of authority, could not change the habits of the people as if by magic. There was long and passive resistance, and old customs could not be extinguished speedily. Even in France to-day, in the silk and lace trades, old measures are in use, in spite of penalties; in Paris persons still talk of onces of tobacco, and acres (arpents) of land; Herbert Spencer says: “One might have thought that, after three generations, daily use of the new system would have entailed entire disappearance of the old, had it been in all respects better,” but he shows there is not conformity, as the people can still talk in sous, and ask for fourths, and they do so. Furthermore, binary divisions of the metric system have been found necessary by the people, and are widely coming into use, a remarkable illustration of the insufficiency of the legal standards for the uses of the people. Though the “voiceless multitude” who suffered most are not represented when Select Committees meet, a knowledge of the troubles caused by all such changes does come to light in various emphatic ways.
