You had options! The London stone for wool was 12.5 lbs, which would give you the same 8 stone to the hundredweight without redefining a hundredweight as 112 lbs.
Or if you wanted to go the other way -- there were plenty of other definitions of the stone in use at the time, after all -- you could have gone with 16 pounds, to maintain parity with the dram and the ounce. Y'all still likely would have screwed up the hundredweight, as 128lb, but you might have at least fixed things by making the ton 16 hundredweight/2048 lb, which would at least have been some lovely binary fractions.
Redefining the hundredweight, seriously?