Return to Table of Contents

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.