efficient, and that it is very easy. If these propositions are true,
the only valid argument against introducing it at once would be a
demonstration that its introduction is either impracticable or else
attended with such disadvantages as to outweigh the beneficial results.

Now, it is quite true that certain schemes tending towards international
uniformity of practice and, therefore, ultimately productive of saving
of labour are nevertheless such that their realization would cause an
almost prohibitive dislocation of present organization. A conspicuous
example is the proposed adoption of the decimal system in coinage and
weights and measures. So great is the loss of time and trouble (and
therefore of money) entailed by using an antiquated and cumbrous-system
instead of a simple and modern one that does the work as well, that the
big firm Kynochs some months ago introduced the decimal system, in spite
of the enormous difficulty of having to keep a double method going.
But hitherto, at any rate, the great disturbance to business that the
change would cause has prevented it from being generally made. Both
this matter and the curiously out-of-date[1] system of spelling modern
English present a fairly close analogy to the multilingual system of
international intercourse, as regards unprofitable expenditure of time
and trouble.

[1]Out of date, because it has failed to keep pace with the change of
pronunciation. Spelling, i.e. use of writing, was merely a device for
representing to the eye the spoken sounds, so that failure to do this
means getting out of date.

But where the analogy breaks down altogether is in the matter of
obstacles to reform.