NATURE 



THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 18S3 



A BUSHEL OF CORN 

 A Bushel of Corn. By A. Stephen Wilson. (Edinburgh: 

 David Douglas, 1883.) 



THIS little book is full of originality and force. It 

 appeals it is true to a class, but a large class. The 

 title is happy and suggestive, and is a sufficient text for 

 every paragraph between the covers. It is true the sub- 

 ject is not exhausted, for much more might doubtless be 

 said concerning "a bushel of corn." 



But it is with a bushel of corn that Mr. Wilson deals. 

 He introduces us to the bushel as an absolute measure of 

 volume, traces its origin, mentions its varieties, discusses 

 its merits, weighs it in the balances of justice, and dis- 

 misses it as inadequate, misleading, and impossible as a 

 com measure. The interest of the reader is at first 

 e.xcited with regard to the evolution of the bushel from 

 terms of Roman sextars. Whether statistician, antiquary, 

 historian, miller, or farmer, he must feel his interest 

 awakened and kept alive. The bushel is seen altogether 

 from a new aspect. Light beams out beneath and around 

 it, and it becomes an object of respect and veneration. 

 It is with regret that we find the fact gradually forcing 

 itself upon us that this archetypal standard of volume, 

 this absolute multiple of the typical wheat grain, this 

 original bond of union between volume and weight in 

 "merrie England," is after all as a gauge of value, and an 

 indication of variations in price with regard to corn, an 

 impostor. This is, however, the conclusion to which we 

 are irresistibly driven, and Mr. Wilson, while he fondles 

 and beams upon his bushel, is in reality dealing it its 

 death wound. Never before has such a blow been levelled 

 against the quarter as a measure of value in wheat. 



Let any member of Parliament or of a constituency 

 read this volume and he will rise convinced that the 

 bushel is really doomed, and that the cental is the only 

 alternative. Cr let any one who is imbued with an idea 

 in favour of the French metric system read it, and 

 he will find that we have in England a much sounder 

 system of quantifying than he imagined, and he will think 

 twice before he gives up his English grain for the French 

 gramme, or the English pint for the French litre. 



The work naturally divides itself into two parts. First, 

 an interesting inquiry into the historical origin of the 

 bushel. Secondly, an attack upon the bushel as a means 

 of quantifying corn. We propose to look at both these 

 aspects. First, then, in the language of the author, 

 " What is a bushel of corn ?" The chief interest in the 

 answer to this question lies in the fact that the bushel is 

 based upon a unit — namely, an increment of wheat. The 

 French have taken distilled water at 4° C. as the medium 

 for connecting weight and volume. The Romans appear 

 to have taken wheat for a similar purpose. The supposed 

 base of the com measures was not the money sterling of 

 24 grains used in weighing gold and silver, but the com- 

 mercial or tron sterling of 32 grains used for heavy 

 goods. In the book known as " Fleia " we are told that 

 " in the English kingdoms the king's measure was made 

 from the penny called the sterling, which is made round ; 

 that this sterling should weigh 32 grains of average 

 Vol. XXIX.— No. 732 



wheat : that twenty pennies make an ounce, and that 

 twelve ounces make a pound of twenty shillings weight 

 and number ; that the weight of eight pounds of wheat 

 makes the measure of one gallon ; that eight gallons of 

 wheat make the bushel, eight of which constitute the 

 common quarter." The sextar pint of the Romans held 

 one London pound of twenty shillings or 7680 grains of 

 wheat of the quality giving 64 lbs. to the bushel. A bushel 

 was 64 sextars, and hence a London pound of really good 

 wheat and a sextar pint united the ideas of weight and 

 measure. According to this view a bushel of good wheat 

 ought to weigh 64 lbs. and to hold 64 pints. The latter 

 statement is true at the present day, and in certain cases 

 the weight may be 64 lbs. also. Mr. Wilson, however, 

 considers that the typical bushel of wheat was not con- 

 sidered to be 64 lbs., which is unusual, but 60 lbs. And, 

 still further, that the ideal bushel of 60 lbs. was probably 

 60 lbs. avoirdupois and not London. In working out this 

 very interesting point, Mr. Wilson shows that, according 

 to " Fleta," a sack of wool was always considered to be of 

 equal weight with a quarter of wheat. Now wool was 

 quantified by tron weight, and if the assumption is correct 

 that wheat was quantified by avoirdupois we can readily 

 see if we can bring the two into accord. " ' Fle/a ' tells us 

 that I2i merchants' pounds of 15 ounces made a stone of 

 wool, and that 28 stones made a sack of wool equal in 

 weight to a quarter of wheat." The weight of the sack of 

 wool would therefore stand thus : — 



Tron oz. 



640 grs. 

 15 



Sack of wool 3, 360, 000 grs. = 4S0 lbs. avoirdupois. 



The comparison with the weight of a quarter of wheat 

 would stand thus .—One bushel of 60 lbs. avoirdupois = 

 420,000 grs., and 8 bushels or i quarter = 3,360,000 grs. 

 = 480 lbs. avoirdupois. The true solution of this difficulty 

 therefore seems to be arrived at, namely, that the bushel 

 of 22i8'i92 cub. in. is equal to 64 Roman sextars and to 

 64 English pints. It holds 8 gallons or 64 pints of wine, 

 and 8 gallons or 64 pounds of really good wheat. It is 

 equal in size to the old Scots or Linlithgow firlot, and 

 holds 80 avoirdupois or Roman pounds of water. 



The idea of a system of weights and measures based 

 on a sound unit like a sextar pint of twenty shillings, 

 invests our system with a halo of antiquarian interest 

 derived from the standards of Im-perial Rome. " I can 

 see," says Mr. Wilson, with well-timed enthusiasm, "the 

 spirit of the old Scots measures standing in an empty 

 Linlithgow wheat firlot, with a wreath of golden ears 

 around his brows, and looking ineffable scorn upon the 

 statutes which affect to abolish his reign and his dynasty." 



Those who want to know more must read the book. 

 We next proceed to take a rapid glance at the objections 

 to the bushel as a corn measure, or as a means of quanti- 

 fying corn. These objections may be summarised as 

 follows. First, the bushel lends itself easily to misrepre- 

 sentation. It can be "shaken together, pressed down, 

 running over." However exact as a measure of fluids it 



