produce of the garden and the farm ; the
French quarteron, or quarter of a hundred,
consisting of twenty-six, in the case of eggs
and fruit ; the gross of twelve dozen, by
which certain small manufactured articles are
counted ; and the various local tales employed
in counting herring, oysters, mackarel, and
other results of the fisherman's labours.
Most of these customs of the country, which
have the force of law in the districts
where they prevail, may be accounted for as
bonuses to the general purchaser, as
compensations offered by the wholesale dealer to
the retailer for the loss he is likely to sustain
on perishable articles, and as profits to
remunerate him for the trouble of retailing ; it
being all the while supposed that his transactions
with his customers will be measured by
tens in the ordinary way.

There is no absolutely imperative reason
why ten should have thus been fixed upon, in
preference to any other number, as the
measure of every calculation. The probable
cause is, that all primitive counting is
performed by the aid of the fingers and toes.
Shepherds are especially attached to scores—
the aggregate amount of the human
extremities. But eight might have served the
purpose even better in some respects; as it
is more divisible than ten, and is theoretically
a more perfect number, being the cube of
two; that is, twice two are four, and twice
four are eight. We might have had a sort of
octonarian hundred of eight times eight, and
an octave thousand of eight times sixty-four,
and so on. The number twelve has also had
zealous partisans, who have urged weighty
reasons in its favour; such as, that it contains
the greatest possible number of factors in the
smallest compass, and that its hold on ancient
prejudice is evidenced by the twelve months
of the year, the twelve hours of day and
night, and the twelve signs of the zodiac.
The carrying out of duodecimal arithmetic
(from the Latin duodecim, twelve), would
require, besides other difficulties, the invention
and adoption of two new figures to stand for
ten and eleven; since a unit followed by a
cipher would then have to stand for twelve,
and a one followed by two ciphers would in
future represent the square of twelve (that is,
twelve multiplied by twelve), exactly as it
now represents the square of ten. But, all
things considered, ten may be received and
acknowledged as the best possible basis for a
system of arithmetic. Eight would prove
inconveniently scanty and limited; and twelve,
in its multiples especially, cumbrously
burdensome.

The value of the accepted Arabic decimal
notation will be appreciated, if you endeavour
to work, in imagination or reality, a complicated
sum with Roman numerals. Please try
and tell me, by those means, the price of
LV. tons, XVII. cwts., III. quarters, and
XII. Ib. of rough brimstone, at V. pounds,
II. shillings, and VI. pence per ton — the price
at which a parcel was actually bought and
sold. Did the Romans ever work sums ?
Could they do even the rule of three with
their abacus, or counting-machine ? Or, did
they jump at their "tottles of the whole," like
George Bidder, making a few mental somersets,
and lighting on their feet at the exact
spot required, by marvellous good luck, as it
would seem to ordinary mortals ?

Another great merit of our numerals is not
thought of so often as it ought to be.
Attempts, be it known, have several times been
made to construct and spread the use of a
universal language, which should be legible
and intelligible to all the nations of the
world. One of these days we may, perhaps,
arrive at that convenient result; at present,
the nearest approach to it is the adoption by
the civilised world of the Arabic numerals,
which, though differently named in different
tongues, are alike comprehensible to the eye
of French, Greek, Spanish, and American.
The symbols 10 are instantly translated into
ten, dix, dieci, zehn, ????, or ?é???? as the
case may be. Modern arithmetic is a
universal language as far as it goes.

Instead, therefore, of giving you a long
sum of compound addition, in pounds,
shillings, and pence, consisting, suppose, of fifty
items, to cast up in Roman numerals, I will
allow you to do it in the current mode in
which bankers' clerks perform it at this hour.
You feel the boon a great relief. Your mental
labour is infinitely less. But is it not
possible still to reduce that labour, by some
simpler mode of counting money? You stare
and doubt. But I know that it is possible;
because, every time I pay my baker's and
my butcher's bill, the labour comes ready
reduced to my hand. How, I will endeavour
clearly to state.

In adding up your pounds, shillings, and
pence,—supposing that you are not plagued
with farthings, halfpence, and three-farthings
to boot, — you begin with the pence column,
and run it up. It comes to so many. Then
you have to say to yourself, "Twelve pence
make one shilling;"—have patience, reader,
you will understand me all the better by
listening to a little childish talk;—"twelve in
so many is so much and so much over." You
put down the odd pence in their place in your
total, and carry the shillings forward to the
benefit of the next column, which you add
up as before. But then you have to change
the current of your thoughts, and to check
yourself with the remark that, in the present
column, twenty shillings make one pound;
and that twenty in so many gives so much
and so much over. You then put down the
shillings superabundant over some given
multiple of twenty, and carry the resulting
pounds to the column of pounds, which you
are at last allowed, taking breath at the
thought, to add and put down in their
natural state, without having to say that
so many pounds (of course, an awkward