Sir G. These are names, Sir J., our ears are quite familiar with. Your last is 100 cubic feet? Sir J. Which is only about a 224th part more than the English corn last. Sir G. That is, 224 of the proposed are equivalent to 225 of the present lasts. Sir J. Nearly; and there is the same relation between the proposed tierce and the present quarter. Sir G. These, W., are very near approximations; but why change quarter into tierce? Sir J. To avoid the impropriety of applying a general term to a particular one. Sir G. As how, Sir J.? Sir J. At present, you know, a quarter means the fourth part generally, and the fourth of a chaldron particularly! Sir G. That, to be sure, is illogical; yet the term you have substituted for quarter means a third. Sir J. It, tierce, is not the general term for third; it was originally employed to denote the third of a pipe, but has now a much more extensive and indeterminate signification. Sir G. And you have therefore a right to employ it determinately; but let me see-I have it-your system, W., will be popular in Scotland. Sir J. Ay, how is that? Sir G. Your last, my dear Sir, has a curious connexion with our Scottish measures. Sir J. Impossible! with your countless variations of county varieties? Sir G. No, not with them-but with the standard chalders. Sir J. As how, C.? Sir G. You must know, that the standard chalder for barley is 118-72, and for wheat, 81.32, and that hence the mean is 100 cubical feet. Sir J. And that is only the two thousandth part more than the proposed last. Sir G. Even so; and, therefore, were Scotland to be benefited with your system Sir J. Why, she would have the proud satisfaction to find that Parliament had condescended to meet her half-way! Sir G. Yes; and, with a considerate regard for her welfare, had only required her to preserve the golden mean! Sir J. But do any of her measures approximate to the proposed tierce? Sir G. That unit is about a sixtieth part less than two of her standard bolls. Sir J. This is very near, yet, among the multiplicity of her measures, is there not one nearer ? Sir G. There is-the wheat boll of Wigton, or, which is the same thing, the barley boll of Ayr, is exactly the English quarter. Sir J. And is thus to the proposed tierce as 224 to 225? Sir G. Yes; but the Bute barley boll is scarcely a fifteen hundredth part less than your tierce-and this is the nearest to it. Sir J. The nearest, Sir G.! why, it is nearer than is commonly the copy to the measure copied. Sir G. It may indeed be said to be the same; but let us now discuss your anker. Sir J. Which is one cubic foot, and therefore nearly a fourth part less than the present anker of brandy, or a fifth part less than the English bushel. Sir G. Or fully a fifth part less than the standard wheat firlot. And your gallon is? Sir J. One tenth of a cubic foot, or is to the English corn gallon as 9 to 14-to the wine gallon, as 3 to 4-and to the beer gallon as 8 to 13, in round numbers. Sir G. And nearly to the Scottish quart as 5 to 6, and to the mean of the two standard lippies as 50 to 49. And your pint? Sir J. Is the hundredth part of a cubic foot, and is thus about the half of the beer pint. Sir J. Sir G. Or one-sixth of the Scottish pint. One-sixth did you say! then the Scottish pint is three beer pints? Sir G. Nearly; and since there is so great a diversity in the existing measures, you are at liberty to make yours of what size you chuse. Sir J. Yes; and since the Scottish penny was only one-twelfth of the penny sterling Sir G. That, indeed, is a stronger instance; yet it was ungenerous in England to give Scotland no more than a penny for a shilling! Sir J. Nay, it was, on the contrary, a high proof of her generosity, to accept as a partner one who could pay but twenty-pence a pound! Sir G. That's well hit, W.; but we digress-and therefore now for your units of money. Sir J. No, Sir G.; mine have been negatived without a vote! I have none others to propose., Sir G. Then I have and they 6 6 100 The mill. = 1000 Sir J. Crowns, dimes, cents, and mills-this, Sir G., is quite Transatlantic. Sir G. Not quite; cents, you know, is a European term; and, proh dolor! there are no crowns in the United States! Sir J. There are abundance of dollars, however; and these the Yankies like better than those. Sir G. Well-I shall not quarrel with their taste Sir J. Nor with their dimes and mills, I perceive. Sir G. That's a mere trifle; America owes a language to us, and we ask, in return, only two little words. Sir J. Which, indeed, are merely manufactures from a foreign production. But let us attend to the values of your units. Your crown Sir G. Is the English crown, or quarter sovereign. Sir J. And why have you quartered the sovereign? Sir G. Because the weight of the crown is 9974 ten thousandths of the proposed or avoirdupois ounce. Sir J. Ha! Its weight then scarcely differs from that ounce by a quantity so small as a four hundredth part! Sir G. And thus, W., it is not one-third of the remedy of the mint. Sir J. Nay, it is considerably less; and hence the ounce avoirdupois may safely be assumed as the weight of the crown! Sir G. It certainly may. This, Sir G., I was not prepared for; yet I am particularly pleased that it harmonizes so very nearly with the proposed units of weight. But go on, your dime? Sir G. Is the tenth of the crown, or our sixpence; and its weight is, or may be reckoned, the tenth of the ounce. Sir J. And the cent is of course the hundredth of the crown? Sir G. Or only one-fifth more than our halfpenny; and its weight in standard silver is the hundredth of the ounce. Sir J. And the mill must be of very little value? Sir G. Not of much, certainly. It is the thousandth of the crown, or nearly one-fourth of our farthing; and its weight in silver is the thousandth of the ounce. Sir J. And thus it is evident the values of your units have the same relation to the crown that their weights in standard silver have to the ounce? Sir G. Almost, accurately, they have. These relations are: Sir J. This is perfectly simple. The crown weighs an ounce, the dime a dram, the cent a carat, and the mill a grain. But as your cent is nearly our halfpenny, your lowest denomination might in general be dispensed with. Sir G. It might. When a fraction is less than a halfpenny, it is commonly neglected, and scarcely more would be lost by neglecting all below the cent. Sir J. Yes; but where the fraction equals, or exceeds a halfpenny, it is reckoned a penny. Sir G. In the same manner, then, when a fraction is less than half a cent, reject it; and when it equals or exceeds half a cent, call it a whole one. Sir J. Precisely. And this, I perceive, is in favour of the cent. By the present practice, we approximate to five-tenths of a penny; and by that proposed, to three-tenths of a penny. Sir G. That is, in the former case, to a halfpenny; and in the latter, to nearly a farthing. Sir J. And since the mill is less than the fourth of a farthing, a minuter accuracy is acquired by the proposed than by the present units. Sir G. Of that there can be no doubt; and, moreover, without changing the progression, the very smallest values may easily be expressed. Sir J. As, for instance, the expression cr. 75.31826, denotes 75 crowns, and 31826 hundred thousandths of a crown; but such refined accuracy is seldom required. very Sir G. No; it will generally be enough to call that expression 75 crowns, and 318 mills, or thousandths. Sir J. Or since the eight thou sandths are more than half a cent, to say 75 crowns 32 cents. And thus your units may commonly be reduced to two, The crown of 100 = 60 pence. The cent Sir G. And, Sir J., is it not of great importance that the present gold and silver coins might remain? Sir J. To be systematic, however, you would require to change their names. Sir G. Yes, partially. The sixpence must be called the dime, or tencent-piece; the shilling, the doubledime, or twenty-cent-piece. Sir J. And the half-crown and crown would be called so still? Sir G. Of course, but the half sovereign would be termed the doublecrown; and the sovereign Sir J. Must be held sacred? Sir G. No; the sovereign must be styled the pound, or four-crownpiece. Sir J. But the copper coins,-you would have to discard them? Sir G. No; for some time, at least, the penny might pass for the doublecent, the half-penny for the cent, and the farthing for the half-cent. Sir J. Well, as their nominal would thus be a fifth more than their real values, they would not likely be applied to any other purpose. Sir G. There would be little fear of that! Sir J. In any new coinage, however, it would be desirable to have even the mill represented by a coin. Sir G. You surely forget that this unit is only about the fourth of a farthing? Sir J. And why not have coins smaller than a farthing? There are precedents enow? Sir G. In many countries, I grant you, there are coins as small as half our farthing. Sir J. And smaller. In Russia, the Netherlands, France, Portugal, Madras, and China, the smallest coin is scarcely a third of our farthing; and in Rome and Calcutta less than a fourth. Sir G. That is less than the mill. And the cowry of Calcutta is not more than the twelfth of a farthing; but cowries are shells. Sir J. That is of no consequence; by means of them small payments are made in the bazaar. Sir G. But have you nothing better in favour of small coins than that such are employed in other countries? Sir J. I have; the lower orders, in many of their little dealings, lose many a half and quarter farthing from the want of corresponding coins. Sir G. Nay, if the poor are to be profited withal, I must, perforce, yield. Sir J. There is, moreover, a moral inducement-the sphere of charity would be extended! Sir G. You are right: many a poor person would thus have it in his power to give a coin to a poorer ! Sir J. Who at present cannot But besides the give a farthing. mill, I would have the double, triple, and quadruple of that unit. Sir G. And why? Sir J. Because with them you can express any number of mills up to a cent., without employing more than one piece of the same kind. Sir G. Ay, this would be useful; you would thus express, 10 by 4+3+2+1 | 7 by 4+3 9 by 4+3+2 8 by 4+3+1 6 by 4+2 or 3+2+1 5 by 4+1 or 3+2 Sir J. And precisely for a similar reason I would have 1, 2, 3, and 4, of each of the other units. Sir G. With sixteen pieces, you would then express any sum from 10 crowns to the fourth of a farthing, without two pieces of the same kind. Sir J. Yes, the copper coin would therefore be the mill, double-mill, triple-mill, and mill-piece, cent, double-cent, and triple-cent. Sir G. And the silver coins-the 4-cent-piece, the dime, the doubledime, triple-dime, 4-dime-piece, and the crown. Sir J. Ay, and the gold coinsthe crown, the double-crown, the triple- crown, and the pound, or 4-crown-piece. Sir G. Or sixteen pieces in all, that is even fewer than we have at present; but might not the same series of numbers be of use if applied to weights? Sir J. Of the very greatest, Sir G.; the weight of any article, from a grain, to the ounce of 1000 grains, would require, at most, only twelve different weights. Sir G. And from a grain, to the quintal of a million of grains, only twenty-four! Sir J. In no one business, however, would of all these weights be required; sixteen or twenty would be sufficient in any instance. Sir G. For example, the weights of grocers would be 1, 2, 3, 4 drams; 1, 2, 3, 4 ounces; 1, 2, 3, 4 marks; and 1, 2, 3, 4, stones. Sir J. And those of goldsmiths and apothecaries, 1, 2, 3, 4 grains; 1, 2, 3, 4 carats; 1, 2, 3, 4 drams; 1, 2, 3, 4 ounces; and 1, 2, 3, 4 marks. Sir G. But as to measures of ca pacity Sir J. I would have 1, 2, 3, 4 gills; 1, 2, 3, 4 pints; and 1, 2, 3, 4 gallons. Sir G. What! no more, Sir J.? Sir J. Not of the same series; any quantity of liquid or dry articles may be obtained by repeated measures of the same unit. If we fill a gallon measure, and then pour the contents into a vessel Sir G. Why, we shall have a gallon in the vessel. Sir J. And if we repeat the operation seven times Sir G. We shall have exactly seven gallons to be sure ;-but what of this? Sir J. Only that there is no occasion to carry the series farther than the anker. Sir G. And so not have the tierce and last? Sir J. The tierce and last, certainly, but I would derive them from anker-the last two units would be rather unweildy measures. Sir G. They would; and now, W., you have exhausted all my objections, and convinced me of the practical excellence of your system. Sir J. Call it not mine, I beseech you; whatever value there is in it, is yours. Sir G. But yours, whatever there is of weight—and so let us go snacks. Sonnet to Laura. IRON-hearted Laura! thou didst never feel H. G. B. SCHILLER'S CORRESPONDENCE. (Continued.) Schiller to the Baron Von Dalberg. Manheim, 24th August 1784. THE place of your present residence having wholly escaped my recollection, I now write your Excellency at a venture, uncertain whether my epistle shall reach you or not. But I feel, I confess, an eager and importunate desire to speak once more, without reserve or disguise, on the ever-interesting and inviting themes of art and literature; and to whom can I, assuredly, more peculiarly and fitly impart myself than to your Excellency? Your absence from Manheim, in the regret with which it has filled me, seems, I may say, to have chilled, and nearly disarmed my genius of its wonted power; and in the warmth of my affection, I have almost, at times, been led to look upon the bland summer which has drawn you to a distance from me, with some sentiments of repugnance and aversion. I now indeed truly believe, that even the most ardent and vigorous fancy, and the richest and most felicitously-active power of poetic invention, require the quickening and salutary influence of some cherished bias and attachment, or kindly incentive, for their continued exertion, which, without violence, or a capricious and desultory force, shall yet, in the abiding warmth of their impulse, foster and preserve, in equable vigour, the noblest powers of the mind. It is, therefore, with no small satisfaction that I already see the trees beginning partially to shed their leaves, and the signs and precursors of autumn rapidly appearing, as I eagerly indulge the hope that your return cannot now be far distant. With regard to my present pursuits, my time is chiefly occupied in my own literary labours of composition, and the study and perusal of the French dramatic writers. The motive which has led me to the latter of these, your Excellency, I feel assured, will readily approve. In the first place, it seems to me that it tends especially to enlarge my know ledge of the great requisites of the VOL. XIV. dramatic art, and enriches, while it chastens and refines, my fancy; and I cherish the hope, through those novel lights and conceptions which in this work of dramatic appreciation break in upon me, of perhaps hereafter striking out for myself a new, and what would seem to me a preferable poetic walk, between the two hostile and dissimilar extremes which so strikingly characterise the English and French systems of dramatic writing. I also, at present, meditate the design of, at some future time, transfusing into our language the most classical and distinguished dramas of Corneille, Racine, and Crebillon; and of, in this way, enriching and elevating our national stage, by such pure and noble productions. The subject of Don Carlos I feel to be, for me, one above all others, noble, comprehensive, and impressive. Four characters which it embraces, of nearly equal interest and magnitude, Carlos, Philip, the Queen, and Alba, open up for me a vast field of arduous poetical exertion. I cannot, therefore, repress some strong emotions of surprise, when I now reflect, that the wayward desire of earning celebrity, in another department of the drama, should have lately made me ambitious of circumscribing my poetical endeavours within the more narrow and unimpressive range of the tragedy of humble domestic life, when, in the subject upon which I now labour, the drama, in its noblest and most comprehensive form, spreads out before me (would that I might indeed say not in vain!) such rich sources of impressive incident and contrasted character. In this most dignified species of the drama, I seem to feel a more flexible power and capacity of depicting, with somewhat of appropriate force and depth of colouring, those more impressive and elevated situations of patriotic interest, which, in my present subject, so abundantly flow from the incidents, and their peculiar dramatic treatment. In the former more familiar and less impressively poetical form of the 3 N |