230 
BRITISH PHARMACEUTICAL CONFERENCE. 
dose then involving two grades of weights, and the £ and £ of the full dose each 
involving 3 grades of weights. 
Taking at random 22 prescriptions, I found the relation between the separate 
ingredients, and the total quantity to be of an octavial* * * § nature in 32 cases, to 
be of a duodecimal! nature in 10 cases, and of adecimalj character in only 1. 
I found the total quantity, estimated as a multiple of the smallest ingredient, 
was 13 times octavial, 6 times duodecimal, and only once decimal. I found the 
number of doses ordered was 9 times octavial, 6 times duodecimal, and only 
once decimal. 
The division of paper into pages for a book is almost necessarily done by 
binary or ternary folding ; we have folio, quarto, octavo, etc., and duodecimo, 
but no division by tens. 
The mariner’s compass is necessarily divided by fours and powers of fours. 
Many other instances might be adduced in which the natural process is evi¬ 
dently doubling and halving repeatedly performed ; but I do not know of any 
instance in which division or multiplication by 5 or 10, is by the force of natural 
circumstances a matter of necessity. This repeated halving, a matter of neces¬ 
sity in some cases, a matter of convenience in others, has become a matter of 
habit in almost all. To adapt our weights and measures to this fact is to adapt 
ourselves to our circumstances, and work in harmony with natural laws. To 
establish a system which does not afford facilities for this natural process, is to 
work in ignorance of natural laws, if not in direct opposition to them ; and no¬ 
thing established upon such a foundation can be eminently convenient, or per¬ 
manently successful. 
Having now discussed the relative merits of octavial and duodecimal division, 
and having in my former paper pointed out what I considered the principal 
failings of the metrical system, I have now only to point out those particulars 
in which I think the American octonary scale may be advantageously modified. 
There is no great advantage in deriving a system from a natural standard ; 
and if the standard weights or measures are to be repeatedly derived from the 
so-called natural source, they will be liable to variation, either from the “ na¬ 
tural source” itself varying, as in the case of the foot; or our estimate varying, 
as in the case of the metre, the pendulum, or the cubic inch of water. 
The commissioners on “ standards of weight and measure” appointed by Go¬ 
vernment in 1838§ state in their report, that the best determinations of the 
weight of a cubic inch of water in England, France, Austria, Sweden, and 
Russia, varied among themselves to the extent of of their weight. At 
another part, they say with regard to weights brought for examination, “ that 
no greater error than ^o^oo P ai> t the quantity weighed, be tolerated.” If we 
accept these statements, it is useless to hope for any cube of water being a source 
of standard weights. We should have, instead of the cube of water being the 
source of the weight, a law stating that the cube of water was to be considered 
so many grains ; reverting to an empirical standard, only retaining a proximate 
relationship between length on the one hand, and weight and capacity on the 
other. From such considerations, they recommend “ that the standard of weight 
be defined by a certain piece of metal or other durable substance,”—“ that the 
standard of capacity be defined by the capacity which, under certain circum¬ 
stances of the barometer and thermometer, contains a certain weight of distilled 
water ; but that it be in no way defined by reference to the standard of length.” 
If we relieve ourselves from any supposed necessity for deriving our standard of 
* Octavial, that is, as 1 to 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, or 128. 
t Duodecimal, that is, as 1 to 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, or 144. 
X Decimal, that is, as 1 to 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 100. 
§ Consisting of Messrs. Airy, Daily, Bethune, Davies, Gilbert, Herschel, Lefevre, 
Lubbock, Peacock, and Sheepshanks. 
