countries have been adduced as having, some
of them a long time since, adopted the
decimal system in their currency, whilst none of
them ever thought of returning again to the
old clumsy confusion worse confounded. One
slight exception, however, may be mentioned
for the sake of truth. In eighteen hundred
and twenty-eight, the Duke of Baden
attempted to introduce decimal coinage, and
began introducing, from his ducal mint, thalers
of a hundred kreuzers each, whilst all the
rest of South Germany had thalers (of
account) of ninety, and gulden or florins
(coin) of sixty kreuzers each. In the land of
the hunchbacked a straight man is sneered
at. After patiently bearing for three years
sneers of this kind, the Duke of Baden gave
up his attempts at decimilisation; and, with
a vengeance, coined thalers of a hundred and
sixty-two kreuzers each — something like
cutting off his nose to spite his face.

Without undertaking to count the millions
of the human race who have tested the
merits of decimal coinage, and are now enjoying
its advantages, it will suffice to say that
nearly all the civilised nations of Europe,
America, and Asia, are decimalists ; even
China and Japan are of the number. In
fact, the only exceptions are Great Britain
and her dependencies, Turkey, Denmark,
Germany, and part of Switzerland. It is,
however, to be observed, that in Egypt, where
the division of the piastre is the same as in
Turkey Proper, into forty paras, foreign
merchants keep accounts in piastres of
hundredths. In certain places in Germany, as
on the Rhine, some banking and commission
houses keep their accounts, also, in thalers
divided into hundredth parts.

There are three ways in which it is
possible to reform our weights, measures, and
moneys : First, to abandon the old system
entirely, and invent a new one in its stead ;
secondly, to adopt that of another country,
in which case the old system will also have
to be given up ; and thirdly, to remodel the
old system, rejecting of it what has become
useless or unsuited to the ideas and wants of
the times, and combining new with the
useful part of the old material.

To follow the first of the above propositions,
would be identical with a sudden
change. Several writers have recommended,
others have strongly insisted upon it. They
assert that more confusion and error would
be likely to arise from a gradual than a
sudden change. That an entire change, and a
sudden change, does create inconvenience, is,
however, confirmed by the historical
experience of France. It is well known that a
radical change was made there at the time of
the first revolution. In many respects the
change was more sudden than radical. In
coin, for instance, the difference chiefly
consisted only in the decimal division ; yet, the
tradespeople and the poorer classes, not having
been properly prepared for the abrupt change,
much confusion ensued, partly owing to the
ignorance of the people, and partly through
the bad faith of shopkeepers, who preferred
selling by the old and lighter, instead of by
the new and heavier weights. Repeated
decrees became necessary to enforce the
adoption of the new weights and measures;
and, at length, in eighteen hundred and
twelve, the French government, in order to
avoid these inconveniences, was obliged to
make a composition with the people, allowing
the use of old names, with binary, instead of
decimal division, of the new weights and
measures. Thus, the half-kilogramme, called
the new pound, is still divided into halves,
quarters, and eighths. The division of the
sou into four liards still lingers even in the
coinage. Often, you cannot buy a loaf without
taking a two-liard piece in change.
Often, a fishwoman or a fruiterer will ask
you six liards a-piece for her herrings or her
peaches. In short, certain classes of a
nation will and must have a binary division,
although they may not entirely object to a
decimal system. This should not discourage,
but it ought to make us wise.

As to the second mode of effecting a change;
would it be prudent and expedient to adopt
the French, or American, or some other
system? The Commercial Traveller opines, and
I quite agree with him, that apart from the
great inconvenience and confusion which
would be sure to arise in consequence, such a
measure would sooner or later end in
disappointment, whilst its alleged advantages are
for the greater part imaginary. The members
of the international jury of the exposition
and of the statistical congress who are
at present in Paris, are meeting, at the
moment this sentence is written, at the
Palace of Industry, to consider the means of
organising an International Association for
the adoption of a uniform system of weights,
measures, and moneys, by the two allied
nations at least; but we may be permitted to
entertain the fear that such a union as that—
between two foreign countries — especially such
as have different standards (as is the case with
this country and France), will only end in
disappointment. In spite of treaties and
engagements, circumstances must be expected to
arise that would lead to a change in the
standard.

Supposing, however, that a treaty of the
sort had been concluded, its alleged
advantages, we may apprehend, would be found
illusory in practice. The Hispano-American
republics, for instance, all coin Spanish
dollars ; yet the coinage of the one is not readily
received in the other, except at a discount ;
and the exchange between Mexico, Chili, and
Peru, must be regulated by a per-centage.
just as it is between Cuba, Porto Rico, and
Spain. The same happens between Paris,
Turin, Switzerland, and Belgium, though all
four have now the franc. There are better
means of cementing the union of two friendly