The Bushel as a Measure, should not be altered. 363 



In terms of the Winchester Bushel, the greatest number of 

 facts regarding prices, and the consequent value of money at 

 different periods, stand recorded, than with regard to any other 

 measure : for these and many other reasons, which strike prac- 

 tical men, I have been always an opponent of the scheme, or 

 mere whim I had almost said, of those who have prevailed in 

 preferring the imagined greater simplicity of a Vessel (impro- 

 perly called a bushel) which holds 80lbs. or 560,000 grains of 

 rain water, and measures 221 8*1 92 cubic inches, as compared 

 with the long-established Winchester bushel, measuring 

 2150"42 cubic inches, and holding 542,890*5 grains, or 77lbs. 

 8oz. 14drs. avoirdupoise, and 76*9 grains troy, of rainwater. 

 Will it be contended, that the maker of bushel Measures, and 

 the official examiner and stamper of such measures, would not 

 be equally capable of placing stamped weights, equivalent to 

 the above number of pounds, ounces, drachms, and grains 

 (amounting to 542,890*5, besides the tare of the vessel itself), 

 as they would be, so to place 80 lbs, in the opposite scale to 

 that in which the vessel under examination, just full of rain 

 water, is being weighed ? and if this is not contended for, 

 what other sufficient reason can be given why the Winchester 

 bushel (so widely spread and universally used) should not re- 

 main, as the integer of measures of capacity, at least of those of 

 its own class, instead of attempting, as the Act. proposes to 

 do, to overturn the "whole system ; but which, I feel confident, 

 cannot be effected, and will not happen ; and hope to see, on 

 the meeting of Parliament, numerous petitions presented, 

 praying that the clauses relative to measures of capacity, may 

 be repealed, and the Winchester bushel* adopted, as the future 

 integer of these, in case that some one measure is to regulate 

 them all. 



If, gentlemen, the above forcible, objection she, against adopt* 

 ing the new (8i)lb) bushel, which is little more than 3 per cent, 

 greater than the present one, how much greater are the objec- 

 tions against such a bushel as Mr. Tredgold indicates in page 

 302, of (8 x 339-293, or) 2714*344 cubic inches, which is 26$ 

 per cent, larger than the bushel in use !, and whose l-8th part 

 is even 46 per cent, larger than the present wine gallon ! 



Engineers and calculators will do well to follow Mr. Tred- 

 gold's advice in using the cubic foot* (rather than his example, 

 as to the frequent use of the inch), as their standard for stating 

 and comparing capacities or bulks, whatever fate may await 

 the " imperial gallon." The 



• In ;i new legislative definition ottheBwhel, it would be well to state its 

 lined cylindrical dimension) and contents, in well-chosen decimals of a foot, 

 instead of inches ami sacb, that the gallon and its subdivision might have 



X / i as 



