ON THE WEIGHTS AND MEASUEES USED IN PIIAHMACY. 
225 
may be, of so serious a nature as with systems giving new values to old names, 
yet of too great importance to be justified by any advantage to be gained from 
a partial adoption of the metrical system. What w T ould be the advantages of 
the metrical weights if limited to pharmaceutical use ? First, w r e should be rid 
of the doubts about drams, ounces, and pounds, for they would all be abo¬ 
lished. We should have concordance between weights and measures, and we 
would be in harmony with pharmaceutical practice in France, etc., but the dis¬ 
agreement between our trading and dispensing weights would be a constant 
source of danger. We would have two sets of weights and measures in perma¬ 
nent use ; and during the long transition state the weights would be of three 
kinds,—apothecaries’, avoirdupois, and metrical,—and we should have recipes 
written in all these till the last book using apothecaries’ weights became obsolete, 
when we would again find the weights reduced to two incompatible systems. We 
should have to keep two sets of dispensing bottles and jars, one series being on 
the ounce scale, the others on the litre. We should have complications of price, 
by buying oil, etc., by the avoirdupois pound or gallon, and selling it by avoir¬ 
dupois pound or ounce, by the fluid ounce, pint, litre, or gram. We should have 
constant calculation to convert one weight or measure into the other. We should 
have mistakes arising from the gram and grain. An unusually small dose 
written in grains might be understood grams, and an unusually large dose written 
in grams might be understood grains. We should be especially liable to this 
mistake in those cases, sure to occur, where both kinds of weights or measures 
were used in one formula, thus— 
“ Iodid. Potass. . . 8 grams. 
Water.8 oz. 
Two tablespoonfuls twice a day.” 
Though w r e have seen this salt prescribed in doses of less than a grain, and also 
in doses exceeding a gram, w r e could not say that the one dose could be inno^ 
cently substituted for the other. 
Something has now been said about the advantages and disadvantages of the 
various systems which have been adopted or proposed as improvements. 
We shall next consider the relative merits of several, under various circum¬ 
stances. First, supposing that we have to reform pharmaceutical weights with¬ 
out changing any other system now in use. Secondly, supposing we have to 
arrange a system of weights and measures for general adoption in Great Britain. 
Thirdly, supposing we have to contrive or select a system most complete in 
itself, and consequently most deserving of universal adoption, without reference 
to any systems at present existing. 
Under the circumstances first supposed, we have to provide a system conve¬ 
nient in itself, harmonizing, as nearly as may be, with troy or avoirdupois 
weights, especially the latter, bringing into coincidence our weights and mea¬ 
sures of capacity, and involving in the change as little trouble and risk, with as 
little ambiguity as possible. These requirements appear to be most nearly met 
in the propositions of Mr. Bell, Dr. Wilson, the Irish system, and the modifica¬ 
tion of the Irish system which has been pointed out above. Mr. Bell’s plan 
of 1855 left, as an alternative, the reduction of the grain or the increase of the 
pound and the fluid measures. The latter change he ultimately considered best 
(see Pharm. Journ. xviii. 594), but this could only be best if commercial as well 
as pharmaceutical measures were altered. Taking the former proposal, the grain 
being reduced so that 480 make the avoirdupois ounce, his plan is just that ad¬ 
vocated by Dr. Wilson in 1859, and opposed by Mr. Bell on account of the 
10 per cent, reduction in the value of the grain. The Irish system agrees with 
it also, excepting in regard to the grain,—their ounce, dram, and scruple being 
reduced about 10 per cent. 
We may give the preference to the proposal of Bell and Wilson, inasmuch as 
YOL. VI. S 
% 
