There is certainly this difficulty in the way, that [1.r.act.e] the ancient minimum dietetic° between two market-towna must have been 19 modern statute miles, which seems a great distance. But it must be remembered that this appearance is a consequence of the notions derived from the modern interpretations of the courts, which make the leuca to be • statute mile; so that 7 miles has long been the legal distance. This interpretation is so preposterous that it must be thrown aside; for even if the mile of Bracton and Meta were the mile of the books, and not the mile of the people, the leuca would he 10,000 feet, or two statute miles all but the tenth of a mile. And the reason given by Bracton certainly requires some greater distance than seven miles. For he implies [Leanne] that the third of a day's work should be half the distance of two markets ; and gives a time for buying and selling not longer in duration than that allowed for going to the market. Reading this paragraph by the modern interpretation of the courts, the time of business would be that in which a laden horse or market cart would go three miles and a half ; and if, taking into account the bad ness of roads in the 15th century, we allow even as much as two hours for this, then the day's work would be only six hours. According to our reading, the time of going nine miles and a half would be the time of business; or allowing three miles an hour, the day's work would be something more than nine hours. It may however be possible, and not improbable, that the mile of 5,000 feet, or that of the books, was that of the courts of judicature, which would give about 121 statute miles as the distance in question.
We conjecture that the length of the ancient mile arose from that confusion between the mile and the leuca which is referred to by Ingulphus. [Leaot-e..] The louca of fifteen hundred paces would, when the foot attained its permanent length, be 1'42 modern statute miles, to which the term nide being applied, we have the probable beginning of the old mile, that is, we adopt D'Anville's conclusion on different grounds. If in the meanwhile the leuca of 2000 paces came
into use (as, according to Ingulphue, it did), which would be called in the books two miles (as in fact it was two miles of the writers), it is by no means surprising that a new leuca of two long miles should be formed from the mile of the people. This would be but a poor con jecture for the establishment of a measure; but it has groat force in reference to a mile, the existence of which is separately proved. And though lngulphus states that the word leuca was introduced as mean ing a mile, yet it is more likely that the new nmeure should have been introduced under the old name, than the new name for the old measure : it is moreover tolerably certain that the conquerors would attempt to introduce both their measure and its name, while the people would be able to resist the latter, but not the former.
The origin of the statute mile may perhaps be explained as follows : The furlong, or quarantena, was not a part of the Roman itinerary system of measures. It grew out of the perch, or perticata, a measure originally of small lengths, as in buying or selling of land, 40 of which were made into one by the simple name of forty-long, or furlong. The great variations of the perch, in different parts of the country, induced the legislature, at a very early period, to fix it at five yards and a half. It did not harmonise with the look-system of measures, and we see [LEAGUE] that when it was introduced there, the mile wait awkwardly as seven furlongs and a half, three porches, and two palms. The legislators of Elizabeth, who were well acquainted with the stadium, seeing the mile of the books (and perhaps of the courts) making upwards of seven furlongs and a half, might very naturally restore the nominal accordance of the old and modern systems, and at the game time avoid fractional quantities, by lengthening the mile into eight furlongs.