B.  s.  proctor's  report  on  weights  and  measures.  125 
Commissioners  appointed  by  the  British  Government  to  report 
upon  standards,)  will  always  have  an  accuracy  of  ascertainment 
far  within  that  of  the  best  determination  of  a  cubic  measure  of 
water, — we  still  think  that  this  "  certain  piece  of  metal,"  selected 
for  the  standard,  should  not  be  arbitrarily  assumed ;  but  should 
always  be  brought  into  unison  with  a  "natural"  standard  with 
all  the  accuracy  attainable.  To  say  nothing  of  the  advantage 
of  a  very  closely  approximative  restoration  of  a  lost  standard, — 
thereby  rendered  possible, — the  practical  conveniences  of  precise 
geographical  factors,  and  of  simple  and  direct  relations  between 
lengths,  weights,  and  measures  of  capacity,  are  certainly  too 
obvious  and  too  great  to  be  lightly  thrown  away.  Thus  where 
we  are  furnished  with  a  bushel,  the  root  of  whose  cube  is  pre- 
cisely the  "measuring  rule  in  common  use,  (one  of  the  many 
advantages  which  result  from  an  octonary  scale  of  weights  and 
measures)  the  benefit  is  by  no  means  a  trivial  one  that  the  farmer 
can  always  without  any  calculation  make  himself  a  cubical  box, 
(whether  to  supply,  or  to  verify  a  measure,)  whose  capacity  shall 
be  fully  as  accurate  as  the  "  bushel"  he  may  purchase, — even 
admitting  that  such  a  process  may  not  have  the  precision  that 
would  satisfy  the  experimental  philosopher.  And  this  is  a 
benefit  which  would  attach  equally  to  every  unit  of  measurement 
in  the  scale.  Whenever  so  radical  a  change  is  contemplated  as 
the  introduction  of  new  divisions  or  denominations  of  measure, 
the  importance  of  adopting  at  the  same  time  the  most  useful  or 
convenient  standards  that  can  be  devised,  is  too  eminent  to  justify 
a  moment's  hesitation  in  throwing  aside  every  thing  that  has  not 
some  intrinsic  value  to  plead  for  its  preservation. 
"  If  we  accept  the  modified  avoirdupois  weight  as  a  transition  scale, 
the  pound  would  naturally  become  our  root,  both  of  weight  and  capacity; 
and  the  inch  or  foot  would  be  a  suitable  root  for  lineal  measure,  which 
would  have  the  advantage  of  preserving  a  convenient  relationship,  and 
mode  of  converting  the  old  quantities  into  the  new  notation,  and  would 
enable  us  to  continue  the  use  of  established  rules  for  converting  bulk  of 
various  materials  into  weight. 
The  report  of  the  American  Pharmaceutical  Association  speaks  ap- 
provingly of  the  practice  of  calling  new  weights  by  old  names.  I  must 
express  my  disapprobation  of  such  a  practice.  I  think  one  of  the  weak 
points  of  their  scheme  is  the  calling  34  ounces  a  pound,  4^  ounces  an 
