222 
BRITISH PHARMACEUTICAL CONFERENCE. 
measures, and bringing them into accordance with our system of numbers; 
while it approaches pretty closely to the Baden weights, and involves only a 
simple calculation for its mutual conversion with the metric system. Thus, the 
baro is ~ gram; the gram is ^ baro, and so on through the other weights 
and measures of the system. His proposition to retain the names dram and 
ounce for 70 and 700 grains is unquestionably to be condemned. This he seems 
to have felt with regard to the measures, as he has adopted the names millim 
and centim for the corresponding quantities, and he has marked with a (?) the 
words pipe and tun where they are used for capacities differing much from those 
at present bearing these names. 
The next proposition which it is desirable to notice, is that of Dr. C. Wilson, 
the object of which was to assimilate weights and measures by the reduction of 
ounce, dram, scruple, and grain of the present apothecaries’ weights. The ounce 
being made equal to the avoirdupois ounce, and the smaller divisions being de¬ 
rived from it, as at present derived from the troy ounce,—the new grain would 
be 0-91145 of its present value; the scruple and dram, being 20 and 60 new 
grains, would also be 0-91145 of their present weight. 
The chief recommendation to Wilson’s plan is its rendering uniform and con¬ 
sistent all the weights and measures in use in British pharmacy ; and this cer¬ 
tainly is the first thing for us to aim at. It would also have the merit of making 
the British pharmaceutical weights more nearly correspond with those most 
used on the Continent. But on the other hand it is not without serious ob¬ 
jections. 
At present we have in Britain, one grain, about which there is no mistake ; 
while all other weights are subject to equivocal interpretation. The scruple is 
20 grains in England and 18 in Ireland ; the dram is 60 grains or 27 grains 
in England, or 54 in Ireland ; so the ounce is 480 or 437 grains; the pound 
7000 or 5760 grains. We cling to the grain, reluctant to lose our last unequi¬ 
vocal weight. It has been urged that the change in the grain is only Ar of its 
weight, and that this being a diminution is on the safe side; but this rendering 
of the grain an equivocal quantity, counterbalances many advantages which the 
system as a scale of apothecaries’ weights and measures would possess. It also 
has the disadvantage of reviving the all-but-obsolete avoirdupois dram ; and 
this in the transition state would render us liable to mistakes of the most serious 
consequence. Even with these disadvantages, the report on weights and mea¬ 
sures in the Proceedings of the American Pharmaceutical Association for 1859, 
declares it an improvement upon the present troy scale. 
Next in order, we have the proposition of Mr. Warington.* It is founded 
upon the avoirdupois pound, which is decimally multiplied, and divided down 
to 70 grains ; he does not advise any weight between 70 grains and the single 
grain, the use of which he thinks it desirable to retain. The names he proposes 
have the merit of avoiding confusion, as the pound and grain being old weights 
retain their old names, and the new weights have allotted to them the designa¬ 
tions of tenths and hundredths for those less than the pound, and tens and hun¬ 
dreds for those which are multiples of the pound. Setting aside the question 
of names, we have simply to decide whether it is better to have the old grain 
and a 70-grain weight, or the baro of 7 grains, and discard the grain in favour 
of fractions of the baro. Their merits appear to be about equal. 
Turning now to the modified avoirdupois weight which has had a brief trial 
in Ireland, and the weights at present authorised by the Medical Council, we 
find further attempts to reconcile the incompatible troy and avoirdupois systems. 
They cannot both continue to exist; and these struggles at amalgamation are 
the natural result of an unwillingness to lose the good parts of either. No one 
* See ‘Pharmaceutical Journal/ xviii. p. 570. 
