The state of our national weights and measures has been a fertile
subject of legislative enactment ever since the signing of the Magna
Charta, which proclaims that 'there shall be one weight and one
measure.' 'We will and establish,' said an act of Edward III. nearly
500 years ago, 'that one weight, one measure, and one yard, be used
throughout the land.' Act has followed act from that time to this, and
still we have not only different weights and measures for different
commodities, but for the same in different parts of the realm. An
ounce means one thing to the grocer, another to the apothecary. A
stone is 8 pounds to the London butcher or fishmonger, 14 to the
provincial; 5 pounds to the dealer in glass, 16 to the cheesemonger,
and 32 to the dealer in hemp. The corn-trade exhibits still greater
varieties. Prices are quoted in official circulars in every fashion,
from the Mark-Lane quarter to the Scotch boll, the firlot, the load
(which may be of various dimensions), the coomb, the last, the barrel
(which also may be various), the ton, the hundredweight, and the
pound. We have seen an extract from an actual account-sales, by which
it appeared, that at the same port the merchant had sold a cargo of
foreign wheat by five different bushels according to the customs of
the buyers. In paying the duty, these various bushels had to be
converted into imperial quarters, and in calculating tonnage and other
dues, it was necessary to reduce all to tons! Here is surely a source
of endless confusion, if not an opening for fraud. Our legislature has
gone on from century to century, mending or mutilating the statutes as
the case might be, but laying down no principles scientific enough to
command the approval of the educated, or simple enough to prevail over
the established usages of the commonalty.
Our neighbours in France, who are particularly fond of framing
theories and experimenting on them for the edification of other
nations, availed themselves of the general upturning of affairs in
1789, to introduce a universal decimal system, to be applied to
everything whatever that could be counted, weighed, or measured. They
started from the measurement of the globe itself, and took as the
basis of their whole system the ten-millionth part of a quadrant of a
meridian, equal to 39-371/1000 inches English. This they called a
mètre (measure), and to it, as a unit, they prefixed the Greek
numerals to express increase in the decimal ratio; thus decamètres,
tens of meters; hectamètres, hundreds of meters; and so on. To express
diminution in the decimal ratio, they used the Latin numerals; thus,
decimètres, tenths of meters; centimètres, hundredths of meters;
milliamètres, thousandths of meters. The unit adopted for square
measure was the _are_, equal to 100 square meters; for solid measure,
the _stère_, equal to one cubic meter; and for measure of capacity,
the _litre_, a cubic decimeter. The weights were derived from these
measures; the _gramme_ being the weight of one cubic centimeter of
distilled water. The system of decimal gradation was applied to all of
these; that is, each denomination represented a tenth part of the one
above it, and ten times as much as the one next below it, the Latin
and Greek numerals being prefixed as we have already described with
reference to the meter. In conformity with this decimal law, the
quadrant was divided, for astronomical purposes, into 100 degrees
instead of 90; and the thermometer likewise into 100 degrees from the
boiling to the freezing point. At the same time, a system of reckoning
money by tens was introduced; and it must be owned, that the whole
system of computation in weights, measures, and money established in
France at this period, is one of the greatest triumphs of
civilisation. In ordinary transactions, old denominations of money are
still used by the French; the _sous_, in particular, being apparently
ineradicable. But in book-keeping, the furnishing of accounts, and in
literature, the modern and legal standards are invariably adhered to.
About thirty years ago, the Americans took it into serious
consideration whether they should adopt the ready-made scale of France
entire. On that occasion (1821), Mr John Quincy Adams produced a most
elaborate report to Congress, containing an immense amount of
information on the subject of metrology. He found great fault with the
French nomenclature, so puzzling to the unlearned. 'Give the people,'
said he, 'but their accustomed _words_, and they will call 16 a dozen;
120, 112, or any other number, a hundred.' He disapproved, likewise,
of thrusting the decimal principle upon things incompatible with it.
'Decimal arithmetic,' said he, 'is a contrivance of man for computing
numbers, and not a property of time, space, or matter. It belongs
essentially to the keeping of accounts, but is merely an incident to
the transactions of trade. Nature has no partiality for the number 10;
and the attempt to shackle her freedom with them [decimal gradations],
will for ever prove abortive.' And again: 'To the mensuration of the
surface and the solid, the number 10 is of little more use than any
other. If decimal arithmetic is incompetent to give the dimensions of
most artificial forms, the square and the cube, still more incompetent
is it to give the circumference, the area, and the contents of the
circle and the sphere.' And once more: 'The new metrology of France,
after trying the principle of decimal division in its almost universal
application, has been compelled to renounce it for all the measures of
astronomy, geography, navigation, time, the circle, and the sphere; to
modify it even for superficial and cubical linear measure.' The
conclusion of the Americans was, that it was better to continue the
use of the system of weights and measures inherited from the
father-land. Partly on account of our intimate commercial relations
with them, they are content to wait, and allow us to take the lead in
the work of reform.
Taking our stand on the ground of mere practical utility, according to
the views suggested, we do not advocate any interference with the
foot, the rood, the acre, the mile, which would lead to the removal of
old landmarks, and would render almost every chart and map and book in
the country obsolete. But we suggest that the time has arrived when
our national weights and measures may be finally adjusted on simple
and scientific principles. Within the last thirty years, a principle
that goes far towards clearing our way has been laid down, and in part
carried into practice. By an act of the British legislature, which
came into operation on the 1st January 1826, our standards were
accurately adjusted, and certain rules were laid down, by which they
could be restored if lost; while the uniform use of these in the
business of the country was strictly enjoined. The imperial yard,
which is the basis of the whole, is to be found in the following
manner:--'Take a pendulum, vibrating seconds of time, in the latitude
of London, in vacuum and at the level of the sea; divide all that part
thereof which lies between the axis of suspension and the centre of
oscillation into 391,393 equal parts; then will 10,000 of these parts
be an imperial inch, 12 whereof make a foot, and 36 whereof make a
yard.' All other measures of linear extension are to be computed from
this. Thus, 'the foot, the inch, the pole, the furlong, and the mile,
shall bear the same proportion to the imperial standard yard as they
have hitherto borne to the yard measure in general use.' For the
determination of weights, take a cube of an imperial inch of distilled
water at 62 degrees Fahrenheit; let this be weighed with any weight,
and let such weight be divided into 252,458 equal parts; then will a
thousand of such parts be a _troy_ grain, of which 5760 make a pound
troy, and 7000 a pound avoirdupois.
'This troy-weight,' said the commissioners, 'appeared to us to be the
ancient weight of this kingdom, having existed in the same state from
the time of Edward the Confessor.' 'We were induced, moreover,' said
they, 'to preserve the troy-weight, because all the coinage has been
uniformly regulated by it, and all medical prescriptions and formulæ
have always been estimated by troy-weight, under a peculiar
subdivision which the college of physicians have expressed themselves
most anxious to preserve.' It was resolved, therefore, to continue the
use of troy-weight for drugs, bullion, &c. and to raise the
avoirdupois on its basis. The commissioners went on to say: 'The
avoirdupois pound, by which all heavy goods have been for a long time
weighed, seems not to have been preserved with such scrupulous
accuracy as the troy, by which more precious articles have been
weighed;' but it was so nearly equivalent to 7000 grains troy, that
they determined this should be its standard for the future. Measures
of capacity were to be based upon this weight, and not, as heretofore,
on cubic inches. Ten lbs. avoirdupois of distilled water weighed in
air at the temperature of 62 degrees Fahrenheit, and the barometer at
30 inches, were henceforth to determine the imperial gallon, to the
utter abolition of three distinct gallons for wine, ale, and corn,
based respectively on the specific bulk and gravity of Bordeaux wine,
English ale, and grains of wheat. All other measures were to be taken
in parts or multiples of the said imperial standard gallon, according
to the proportions hitherto in use. A great reform in this connection,
was the obligation of dealers to sell most solid commodities--as coal,
bread, potatoes, &c.--by weight and not by measure, which had been
liable to great abuses. Corn, however, was not included in this
provision; nor has even the use of the imperial bushel been
universally enforced where it interfered with the long-established
usages of corporate bodies.
To carry thus far into effect these newly-established measures,
required no common exercise of authority. Every dealer, wholesale or
retail, was obliged to have his weights verified and stamped. The
brewer was compelled to get new casks; the retailer new pots and
pints; the farmer new bushels, and, consequently, new corn-sacks. The
expense thus incurred was enormous, and the grumbling was of course in
due proportion.
It is believed that the units above mentioned--the yard, the pound
avoirdupois, and the imperial gallon--cannot now be superseded by any
other. It remains to shew, as Mr Taylor has very satisfactorily
done,[1] how that which has been well begun may be followed out and
completed by the establishment of more complete uniformity, and the
legalisation of decimal gradations for facilitating calculation.
The two co-existing pounds originally adjusted in relation to the
specific gravities of wheat and spring-water, are now the sole remains
and representatives of a fanciful theory spun in the middle ages; and
the first question that occurs is, whether the pound troy, having
served its purpose, might not be done away with, and the pound
avoirdupois ascertained by reference to a cubic inch of distilled
water. We were told forty years ago, that for the introduction of a
uniform and scientific system, we must wait for the spread of
education in the community; and we feel somewhat ashamed now to find
that the members of the medical profession, which is understood to be
one of the most highly-educated bodies, offer the most formidable
opposition to reformation in this respect. 'The testimony, however,'
says Mr Taylor, 'of many individuals of the medical profession,
especially the younger portion, and certainly that of the retailers
and dispensers of drugs, tends entirely to shew the practicability of
a beneficial and convenient change. With all these, there appears no
more serious difficulty to encounter than that involved in altered
editions of their usual dispensatories, or books of reference'--an
amount of trouble and expense, we should say, not greater, certainly,
in proportion to the position of the parties concerned, than that
which was forced on the poor chandlers and milkwomen by the act of
1826.
Then, to adapt the avoirdupois pound to the further objects in view,
it must be reconstructed as to its divisional parts. In order to this,
it is not necessary that the nomenclature should be changed, or that
our poor people should be puzzled with the _decas_, and _hexas_, and
_millias_ which has formed the greatest practical difficulty in the
decimal system of France. It is proposed simply to divide the pound
avoirdupois into 10,000 parts instead of 7000, and to employ names at
present in use for the minor denominations; but if it be thought
incongruous to retain the term _grain_, which had reference to the
weight of wheat or barley, _minim_ might be substituted. Then the
multiples of the pound, which have hitherto been so various, are to be
decimally graduated--as, stones of 10 lbs., cwts. of 10 stone (or,
literally, 100 lbs.), and tons of 10 cwt. The decimal measures below
the gallon would correspond of course with the weights, as it is
decided by the act, that a gallon is to contain ten pounds of water.
The measures above gallons, it is proposed to call firkins and butts.
It is taken for granted that quarts and pints, as well as half-pounds
and quarter-pounds, would still be continued in use. In France, the
government was obliged to relax its decimal principles in favour of
permitting a partial return to the binary mode of subdivision. Mr
Adams, who is high authority on such a point, avers that such
divisions are 'as necessary to the practical use of weights and
measures, as the decimal divisions are convenient for calculations
resulting from them.' If this be admitted, almost the only change to
retailers of ordinary commodities would be the introduction of the new
ounce weight, altered to the tenth of a pound, with price in
correspondence; and perhaps the fluid pound, or tenth of a gallon. If,
however, the latter were likely to be generally used by the masses, it
would be desirable that it should bear a more familiar name. But
probably it would be little known, except as the highest denomination
generally used by the apothecary; in which case the nomenclature would
be all the better for expressing the value of the measure
scientifically in relation to distilled water, as is now usually done
by this class.
It is easy to shew the practical advantages that would result in
mercantile calculations if such a scale were adopted, and especially
in connection with the decimal system of money advocated in a former
number of this Journal.[2] If a parcel of goods weighs 13 cwt., 7
stone, 8 lbs., and it be desired to know how many pounds it contains,
it is unnecessary to change a single figure to shew that there are
1378; an additional cipher gives the number of ounces (137,80);
another the number of drachms (137,800), instead of requiring the
present tedious process of reduction. Again: if any commodity costs,
for instance, 2 fl. 3 cents per lb., we know without taking up a pen
that it is 2 cents 3 mil. per ounce; that it is L.2, 3 fl. per stone;
L.23 per cwt.; L.230 per ton; and so on. Here is a cargo--no matter of
what--weighing 374 tons, 7 cwt. 4 st. If the value is, for instance,
L.2, 3s. per ton, we have but to multiply the figures 37474 by 23, and
_point_ the amount thus--L.861.9.0.2. If, however, the price be L.2,
3s. per cwt., the point after the pounds, which is the only essential
one, must be removed a step further to the right--thus, L.8619.0.2;
and if L.2, 3s. per stone, it will be L.86190.2. Let any one try the
difference between these operations and similar calculations according
to our present system, and he will confess it is no mean advantage
that the advocates of decimal gradations are seeking to obtain for the
community.
We are happy to add, that since our article on Decimal Coinage
appeared, we have received numerous communications on the subject; and
while there are minor differences of opinion as to the details, there
appears to be perfect unanimity as to the desirableness of the system,
and the possibility of bringing it into general use.