stated that amongst retail traders there was no evidence that a change was required. Certainly they have never made any demand for it.
When you have a system, you must think it as well as be able to write it. We have got into the habit of thinking in pounds and yards and gallons—by the mention of one or the other a definite idea is conveyed. Introduce the metric system, and there would be an upheaval—the tailor, the bootmaker, dressmaker, butcher, baker, anyone and everyone engaged in trade; everyone who is a buyer, who is a seller, would have to revise not only his arithmetic but his appliances. To give one homely illustration, amongst many which might be cited, Mr. A. Spencer points out: “In the case of milk and beer, these are sold generally in quarts, pints, and half-pints. Should the metric system be introduced, the litre, half-litre, and the double decilitre would take their places, and the purchaser would suffer a loss of a gill, a half-gill, and a quarter gill respectively. I should think a reduction in price not likely to follow, as it would hardly be practicable.” He added that in some cases the change would be a benefit to the small purchaser, and in others it would prove a loss.
The apparent disregard shown to the feelings and opinions of the very people, the home traders, who would be most concerned in any alteration, indicated by the fact that when inquiries have taken place none truly representative of them have been examined, was forcefully recognised on one occasion. When the House of Commons Committee which sat in 1895 were framing their report, one member moved the inclusion of the following paragraph:—“That no witnesses were called to represent the numerous classes of
