You are aware, gentlemen, that at the time of the establishment of the metrical system the decimal division had been extended to the measurement of angular space and of time.  Numerous instruments were even made according to the new system.  As to time, the reform was introduced too abruptly, and, we might say, without enough discretion, and it came into conflict with old habits and was quickly abandoned; but as to the division of angular space, in which the decimal division presented many advantages, the reform sustained itself much better, and is still used for certain purposes.  So, the division of the circumference into 400 parts was adopted by Laplace, and we find it constantly employed in the Mecanique Celeste.  Delambre and Mechain used, for the measurement of the are of the meridian from which the metre was derived, repeating circles divided into “grades.”  Finally, in our own time, Colonel Perrier, Chief of the Geographical Division of our Department of War, has used instruments decimally divided, and at the present time logarithmic tables appropriate to that method of division are in course of calculation.

But it is especially when it is a question of making long calculations of angular space that the decimal system presents great advantages.  In this respect we find, so to speak, only one opinion expressed by scientists.

The Conference at Rome, which brought together so many astronomers, geodetists, eminent topographers—­that is to say, the men most competent and most interested in the question—­expressed in respect to it a desire, the high authority of which it is impossible to mistake.

It is, therefore, now evident that the decimal system, which has already done such good service in the measurements of length, volume, and weight, is called upon to render analagous services in the domain of angular dimensions and of time.

I know that this question of the decimal division encounters legitimate doubts, principally as to its application to the measurement of time.  It is feared that we want to destroy habits fixed for centuries, and upset established usages.

In this respect, gentlemen, I think that we ought to be fully satisfied.  The teachings of the past will be respected.  It will be perceived that if we failed at the time of the Revolution, it is because we put forward a reform which was not limited to the domain of science, but which did violence to the habits of daily life.  It is necessary to take the question up again, but with due regard to the limits which common sense and experience would prescribe to wise and well-informed men.

I think that the character of the reform would be well defined by saying that it is intended especially to make a new effort towards the application of the decimal system in scientific matters.