With the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee still fresh in people’s memories, and with a new King on the throne, it is a momentous time in our country’s history as the House of Lords votes unanimously to switch to the sole use of the metric system for all official purposes within a 2-year period.
The vote was undoubtedly influenced by the massive public support recently expressed in favour of the metric system.
The date of this vote, 23 February, is surely one to remember. Not 2024 however, but 1904.
It was 120 years ago today, that the House of Lords voted unanimously in favour of a Bill which would have seen the UK switch to the metric system over a 2-year period.
Amongst other parallels with today’s times; in 1904, King Edward VII had recently become King, following Queen Victoria’s reign of 64 years, and the Decimal Association was campaigning for the adoption of a single decimal system of weights and measures. And the massive public support? In this case it is not the overwhelming public response to the Government’s consulatation in 2022, in which 98.7% of over 100 000 respondents preferred metric units for trade, but the presentation to the House of Lords on 23 February 1904, of petitions in favour of the metric system, representing over 3 million people.
The Decimal Association, the forerunner of the UK Metric Association, included the news of “the success which was scored on the 23rd” in a letter dated 8 March 1904:
The Bill
The Bill was originated by Lord Kelvin, an active Committee member of the Decimal Association, and presented to the House of Lords by Lord Belhaven, a colonel in the Royal Engineers and Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society.
Previously, in July 1895, the House of Commons Select Committee on Weights and Measures had published their Report with the following three recommendations:
- That the metrical system of weights and measures be at once legalised for all purposes.
- That after a lapse of two years the metrical system be rendered compulsory by Act of Parliament.
- That the metrical system of weights and measures be taught in all public elementary schools as a necessary and integral part of arithmetic, and that decimals be introduced at an earlier period of the school curriculum than is the case at present.
The first recommendation had been complied with by the Weights and Measures (Metric System) Act 1897. However, a serious omission in that Act, failed to give inspectors of weights and measures the power to verify and stamp the metric weights and measures so used.
The third recommendation had also been complied with. The Educational Code of 1900 ensured that the metric system was taught in schools, but in many cases questions on the subject were not being asked in exams, and school teachers were reportedly disheartened when they found that inspectors were not giving credit for the time that was being devoted to the teaching of the subject.
The 1904 Weights And Measures (Metric System) Bill was designed to address both of these deficiencies, but most importantly it was designed to address the second recommendation of the 1895 report – to render the metric system compulsory by Act of Parliament.
Clause 1 of the Bill provided that as from 5 April 1906, the metric standards of weights and measures shall be deemed to be the Imperial standards in substitution for the existing standards.
Clause 6 provided to make it compulsory that every deed, contract, bargain, sale, or agreement relating to weights or measures made in the UK, or entered into after the commencement of the Act, shall be made or entered into in terms of the metric system of weights and measures, and that any such document made in terms of any other system shall be void and of no effect.
Clause 7 provided that all references contained in any Act of Parliament in force at the commencement of the Act, or passed thereafter, to the Imperial weights or measures then in force, shall be deemed to be and construed as references to the respective equivalents in the metric system.
The House of Lords debate
Contrary to what some of today’s politicians would have us believe, the Victorians and Edwardians were far from content with the relatively recently-standardised imperial system, with its convention of using more than one unit at a time for a given measurement, and its multiplicity of conversion factors needed to carry out even the most straight forward of measurement calculations. Any notion of a requirement to use the imperial system being regarded as an “ancient liberty” would have been regarded as piffle.
In the House of Lords debate, Lord Belhaven’s opening statement included some illustrations of the problems encountered when working with the imperial system:
When we come to smaller measures than an inch, especially where extreme accuracy is required, as in mechanical engineering, the usual system is to divide the inch into a half, a quarter, one-eighth, one-sixteenth, one-thirty-second, one sixty-fourth, and even further. Here is one of the first difficulties we come to. In laying out some work the workmen may have in succession such quantities as these — 3¼ ins., 2⅛ ins., 1 7/16 ins., 39/64 ins., and so on, and to add these quantities together requires much calculation with considerable liability to error.
Frequent mistakes occur in reading a plan by taking 1 3/16 for 13/16, or 1′1¼ins. is read as 11¼ins., and vice versa.
In the measurement of fields and larger areas of land some attempt has been made to work on a decimal system by measuring with a chain divided into 100 links, and reducing square chains to acres by dividing by ten. But this is not always the practice, especially in the case of building land where the measurements are taken in feet and inches. Such mixed quantities, when multiplied together, produce square feet and a remainder of square inches. These are reduced to square yards by dividing by nine. The next step is to divide by 30¼ to get to rods, poles, or perches, as these are alternatively called in different parts of the country. This being accomplished the poles are divided by forty for roods, and again by four to get the number of acres. We now have the area of our plot of ground in so many acres, roods, poles, square yards, square feet and inches, and when the next step is to find the value of the ground, at, say, £76 16s. 0d. per acre, the whole process has practically to be gone over again.
How different is the simple method of measuring the length and breadth in metres and decimals of a metre, multiplying these, shifting the decimal point four places, when we get the number of hectares, with fractional part expressed in decimals, when the price can be worked out by simple multiplication.”
Lord Belhaven pointed out that even slide rules, the equivalent of modern day pocket calculators, were impractical for imperial and other non-decimal calculations:
A curious illustration of this occurred to me yesterday. I was in a mathematical instrument maker’s shop in the Strand, and I noticed a slide rule. I asked if many were sold, and was told that hitherto very few, but that now there was a demand for them by electrical engineers. As electrical calculations are all on a decimal system”
On the question of whether two years was sufficient to complete the changeover, Lord Belhaven gave examples of the rapid trouble-free experiences in European countries that had made the change not long before:
Public opinion
Lord Belhaven dealt with another concern that was being used as an argument for not switching to metric weights and measures at the time, which was public opinion.
The answer to that is the quantity and the quality of the petitions which I have presented to your Lordships’ House this afternoon, and a list of which I have had printed and circulated to each of your Lordships. The list comprises some thirty town and city councils, some forty chambers of commerce, a very long string of retail dealers, trades unions representative of 289,000 workers, teachers’ associations, inspectors of weights and measures, and a large number of individual signatures, bringing the total number of individuals represented to 333,000, whilst the population of the cities and towns whose councils have signed petitions is 2,800,000.
There is also a large number still to come in, and I shall probably be able, in a week’s time, to present nearly as great a number of supplementary petitions.
This will, I hope, show that there is a very strong feeling in the country in favour of this Bill.”
Decimal Association
The Decimal Association played a key role in lobbying Parliament in the 1890s and 1900s. It was thanks to their members’ efforts that the 1904 Bill very nearly succeeded in becoming law. The Association’s strategy involved:
- Obtaining promises of votes from MPs.
- Urging public bodies to sign the Association’s petition.
- Agitating the question in the Press.
- Explaining the simplicity of the metric system to those that it described as being “under the wrong impression that there is something difficult about it”.
The Decimal Association had been able to track the growth of public opinion in favour of the metric system by the number of MPs who supported their cause:
| Date | MPs who supported the Objects of the Decimal Association |
| June 1900 | 96 |
| February 1901 | 170 |
| June 1901 | 266 |
| October 1902 | 292 |
| February 1904 | 333 |
By March 1904, the Decimal Association stated that in addition to the 333 MPs openly supporting the Bill, there were 35 more who had signified their approval but had withheld authority to publish their names.
The petition presented to the House of Lords included a summary of signatories together with the numbers of people that they represented:
click on the image to access the pdf
| Organisation | Population represented |
| The total population of Cities, Towns and Counties whose Councils have signed Petitions | 2 809 519 |
| Total number represented by Retail Traders’ Organisations | 24 500 |
| Total number represented by Trade Unions | 289 150 |
| Total number represented by Teachers’ Associations, GB & Ireland | 7 159 |
| Total number represented by Sundry Organisations | 2 000 |
| Total Individual Signatures | 10 948 |
| Grand Total | 333 757 |
Additional petitions were presented to Parliament after the debate. In their Reasons Why pamphlet, the Decimal Association listed 98 School Boards that had passed favourable resolutions, and petitioned the Government in support of the reform. These school boards represented a total population of 10 655 672.
As a demonstration of how simple the metric system is, the Reasons Why pamphlet devoted no more than two-thirds of a page to describe everything that anyone would need to know about the metric system in order to use it in everyday life.
The Decimal Association’s Reasons Why pamphlet will be the subject of a future Metric Views article.
Unfortunately, despite the unanimous vote in the House of Lords, the Bill was referred to a Select Committee and, despite assurances from the Government that they would not obstruct the proposal, the House of Commons failed to adopt the Bill.
1904 and 2024
Some of the parallels between 1904 and 2024 are readily apparent, but in 2024 the tasks remaining to complete the UK’s metrication process are now trivial in comparison with the situation in 1904.
It is also notable that in 1904, 333 MPs were prepared to add their names to a list in favour of full metrication, whereas today it is difficult to find even one MP who is prepared to put their head above the parapet.
Published in 1895, H.G. Wells’ science-fiction novel The Time Machine would have been familiar to members of the Decimal Association in 1904. If a member from that time was able to travel 120 years into the future, what would they think of the progress that has been made in 2024? – Their first impressions of what measurement units we use now would probably be formed on arrival, when they see our road signs.
References
The debate in the House of Lords – 23 February 1904
https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/1904-02-23/debates/78646f4b-66a8-4ec1-91e1-d7830ae7616b/WeightsAndMeasures(MetricSystem)BillHl
Boris Johnson to reportedly bring back imperial measurements to mark platinum jubilee
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/28/boris-johnson-set-to-bring-back-imperial-measurements-to-mark-platinum-jubilee
Metric Views 
Two points,
There is neither the will nor the wit in government circles today to bring this forward. In fact I would not be surprised if this was not a ploy to attempt another burial of the issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The obvious question I would ask is why the House of Commons failed to adopt the 1904 Weights And Measures (Metric System) Bill despite substantial support from MPs, Lords and major organisations. The full conversion to the metric system could have been completed in two years if the Bill had been passed by Parliament.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ronnie,
I was thinking this very same thing. If the Parliament vote unanimously in favour of metrication in 1904, then why wasn’t it carried out?
Another question is what version of metric would have been adopted? Would the UK have updated itself and converted to SI post 1960, or would they continue to use all of the deprecated old-metric units?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ronnie:
Is there any way to find out why the 1904 Bill wasn’t adopted? I can’t imagine it simply fell by the wayside, as some Bills seem to. The 1904 Bill was about a substantial modernisation of the country. Whatever happened?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Most bills are introduced by the House of Commons. This bill was introduced by the House of Lords.
For a bill to become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Parliament.
It’s not clear why the House of Commons never adopted it. Whatever the reason, there doesn’t seem to be any record of it ever being debated in the Commons.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The matter of metrication was raised at the 1902 Self-governing colonies Prime Ministers Conference with those present voting in favour (http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/9065465). Thereafter Joseph Chamberlain (Colonial Secretary) contacted the governors of all the colonies to get their views. By and large the colonies were in favour of metrication. (https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Electrician/JJk9AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA766). The House of Lords motion was passed after this was done. It appears that the bill had a successful second reading in the Lords and was referred then to a select committee. It was eventually reached the House of Commons in 1907 who, on the second reading, voted 150-118 against the bill with the main opposition coming from the textile and engineering trades.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If the Bill did indeed spend 3 years with a Select Committee following the House of Lords vote, this would explain why there seems to be no record of the 1904 Bill ever being debated in the House of Commons. The question remains though, why was there such a long delay? Three years seems an inordinate amount of time for a Select Committee to scrutinise such a straight forward Bill. Meanwhile, during those 3 years, there had been a General Election, and a change of Government.
The delay effectively halted the momentum that the metrication campaign had grown over the previous decade and more, and allowed opponents of metrication enough time to organise.
Considering the 3-years scrutiny it would have been subjected to, the 1907 Bill, introduced by the new Government was not very different from the 1904 Bill. Amongst the differences was a 3-year changeover period instead of 2 years.
What would have been particularly frustrating for metric campaigners at the time, was that there was no necessity for the Bill to have been referred to a Select Committee at all. In the Lords debate of 23 February 1904, Lord Wolverton did give reasons why the Government thought the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee; not least being the lack of provision for round metric unit pricing. But these and other concerns could have been addressed by amendments to the Bill from either House. This was pointed out by Earl Spencer, “Why should they shift the responsibility of dealing with a matter of this kind on to a Committee? I maintain that His Majesty’s Government are bound to deal with this themselves, and should not refer it to a Select Committee.”
It seems likely that, if the 1904 Bill had not been referred to a Select Committee, the Bill could have passed a vote in the Commons in 1904.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Isaac wrote: “Amongst the differences was a 3-year changeover period instead of 2 years.”
Could you please provide a link so that those interested can see what other differences there were between the 1904 Bill and the 1907 Bill?
LikeLike
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1907/mar/22/weights-and-measures-metric-system-bill-2
MR. STRAUS:
“… In 1904 a measure similar to that now before the House was passed through all its stages in the House of Lords. The alterations in this Bill were very slight indeed. It was proposed that the metric system should become compulsory after a period of three years; the 1904 Bill proposed that the period should be two years.”
“Clause 1 of the Bill proposed that on and after 1st April, 1910, or such later date as might be fixed by a postponing order, the kilogramme and the metre should be the imperial standards of weight and measure.
Clause 2 authorised the making of Parliamentary copies.
Clause 3 sought to enact that all future dealings involving weight or measure should be in terms of the metric system, and imposed a penalty not exceeding 40s. for each offence against the provisions of the clause, but excepted (1) contracts made before the commencement of the Act; (2) contracts with persons outside the United Kingdom;(3) any trade or business for the time being exempted by order in Council.
Clause 4 enacted that all references in existing Acts of Parliament, orders, by-laws, etc., to existing weights and measures should be deemed to apply to equivalent metric weights and measures, but gave the Board of Trade power to make provisional orders removing any inconvenience caused by the change.
Clause 5 applied the provisions of the existing Weights and Measures Acts to the metric weights and measures.
Clause 6 related to the provision of local standards.
Clause 7 gave the Board of Trade general power to take steps for facilitating the transition.
Clause 8 repealed some enactments inconsistent with the Bill.
Clause 9 related to Board of Trade standards.
Clause 10 gave the short title Weights and Measures (Metric System) Act, 1907.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
The reasons why the bill failed in spite of having the support of the majority of Commons MPs, have been made clear, for those choosing to read through. If the bill had have been passed, then a completion time of two years does not seem unreasonable, given the much-simpler style of life of those days.
It took another 60 years for the general principle of metrication to be approved. A ten-year target was set, and could have been easily achieved if Governments has kept up the pace, as other countries did. We are now in the position where, for most purposes, the metric system has been adopted.
One glaring exception is road signage. The highway system of 1904, such as it was, was trivial compared with the vast systems we have nowadays. Ireland successfully made the change but it was phased over many years, keeping costs down. To make the change here, we would need a lead time of at least two years, preferably three, for speed limits to be changed, to allow for publicity and change in the Motor Vehicles Construction and Use regulations, to make speedometers and tachometers compliant in new cars. The actual traffic signs, other than those defining speed limits, could start to be phased over almost immediately but we would need a longer time scale.
LikeLiked by 1 person