troy weight, being already decimally used by
the Bank of England, calls only for a passing
remark. It is stated that both the governments,
for the Mint,and the College of Physicians,
for their prescriptions, desire to retain
the Troy weight.If we are not to have
weights founded on the gramme, there are,
perhaps, no good reason why they should
not.The attempt to make a fusion of this
and of the commercial weight, does not
promise well. The two weights will not
compare in decimal fractions. It may be better,
therefore, to let both alone. There is no more
necessity for comparing them, than there is
for bringing the pound and the pint decimally
together. Those articles which are weighed
by the weight of commerce, never are, or at
all events, never should be weighed by the
troy, and vice versa. Practically, in reference
to weight, incongruous dry articles, such, for
instance, as sugar and silver, have as little
relation to each other as solids and liquids, or
sugar and oil. They can never interfere with
each other, when weighed and measured. No
practical objection can, therefore, be made to
the co-existence of troy weight and the weight
of commerce-- always supposing that the
gramme is never to be naturalised on the
northern shores of the Channel. The French
metrical weight has been adopted by the
German Custom's Union; and it cannot be denied
that it answers in a perfect manner all
purposes, commercial and scientific. So,
however,will our old weights decimally arranged;
and to the advocates of the French weight
may be opposed the fact, that the United
states, at present our best customers and
likely to remain so, have our old weights, and
use them, partially already, decimalised. The
Commercial Traveller proposes to take the
pound of commerce (avoirdupois) as the
unit for all those articles of merchandise
which are now weighed by it; a hundred
of these pounds would make the hundred-
weight; and ten hundred-weights, or a
thousand pounds would be a load. In dividing
the pound decimally, we shall have ten parts,
which might be called poundlings; the poundling
might be divided into ten parts, which
would be the lowest division of commercial
weight, and these, after the maner of our
cousins of Holland, might appropriately be
called weightlings. The denominations of
ounces, drachms, etc.,in the weight of
commerce are objectionable, as they already
exist, and are likely to be retained in troy
weight. For the convenience of weighing,
quarters of the hundred-weight, and stones
of ten pound,might be manufactered; but,
as we have the term, quarter, in our
measures, the twenty-five pound weight would
more fitly be denominated by the term,
fourth.

Upon the principle generally advocated,
that our new nomenclature ought to contain
no two terms alike in sound, but of different
application, and by which the ounce would
remain only in the troy weight, it is urged
that the pound should remain exclusively in
the weight of commerce, the ounce being made
not only the unit, but also the highest
multiple of the troy weight. Thus, instead of
saying, for example, one thousand eight
hundred and sixty-nine sovereigns are coined out
of forty pounds troy, we should simply say,
out of four hundred and eighty ounces.If it
should , however, be found desirable to have a
multiple of the ounce troy (which must, of
course, be a decimal one), the term, pound,
as belonging exclusively to the weight of
commerce, will, it is hoped, be replaced by
some new term, or even by some ancient one,
such, for instance, as the Roman decunx,
dextans, or the like.

Then, as to when the change is to take
place; and also how; whether at once or by
instalments. The Commercial Traveller
advocates that the decimalisation of the money
should, on account of its greater difficulty
follow the change in the weights and
measures. We should not think of teaching a
child half the alphabet, and then presume
that he should know how to read; but we
teach him gradually, and we insist first upon
those letters for which he shows most fancy
and receptiveness.In like manner should
our decimal reform proceed. A simultaneous
change would overtax the patience of the
people and render the reform distasteful.

Upon examination of our present
cumbrous system, it will be found that the
inconsistencies, absurdities, and inconveniences
have most accumulated in the weights; and
if our weights are capable, as they undoubtedly
are, of being reduced to very simple,
easy, and rational proportions, they will
naturally call more urgently for a change.
But more still, upon further examination, it
will also be found, that a reform in weights
(and measures), although it seems to present
to those who undertake to carry it out,
greater difficulties than a reform in coinage
probably will,yet promises to be considerably
more feasible in its adoption, as far as the
people are concerned. This appears to be a
grave reason in favour of the reform in
weights and measures taking the precedence.

If we begin with the coinage, the law must
enact that one fine morning everybody shall
pay and receive in a new mode of reckoning;
To whatever inconvenience or confusion the
change may give rise, that inconvenience
will be repeated when weights and measures
next have their turn. The same will not happen
if the case is reversed. For upon whom is it
that the onus and inconvenience of the change
will chiefly fall! It is not upon her Majesty's
ministers or upon the Master of the Mint;
for the law will give them time to prepare.
It is not upon the bankers and capitalists in
general, who will readily convert their rates
(where they are not already percent) from
vulgar into decimal fractions. Nor is it upon