255 
of Edinburgh, Session 1883-84. 
recent ; and by deducing what the mean conclusion is from each 
source, to be thus able to compare together the various results, and 
so arrive at some definite statements within known limits of 
uncertainty. 
The only discussion of the subject that has yet been made is that 
by Professor de Morgan * in the article Mile,’’ in the Penmj 
C ijdopoedia ; in other encyclopaedias no notice is taken of the history 
of the English mile, and D’Anville makes only a rough deduction 
as to the old mile being longer than the statute mile ; he uses but 
few data, complicates these with unproved theories, and is somewhat 
vague in his statements, f 
It will be necessary first to briefly mention some of the conclu- 
sions in De Morgan’s most valuable article in order to point out 
their bearing on the inquiry. In beginning the article he seems 
strongly inclined to disbelieve in the existence of any old mile 
longer than the statute mile, mainly relying on the fact of Bernard 
(1688) and Greaves (1647) not describing any longer mile. He 
says, on the authority of the silence of Bernard and Greaves above 
referred to, we must remain of a contrary opinion (I'.e., to D’Anville), 
and must suppose that the computed miles preserved by Ogilby 
(1675) had been intended to represent the number of statute miles, 
but erroneously given. What then may these computed miles 
mean which had served the common purpose in the estimation of 
distances? The word computed never meant reputed, but was 
always applied to a result of reckoning of some kind or other.” 
How it so happens that, in the Travelled s Guide (1699) | (a typo- 
graphical edition of Ogilby ’s Atlas), these miles are variously 
described as “computed,” “vulgar computation,” and “reputed;” 
so that the objection raised by De Morgan to their being those in 
common repute and use is not borne out by the name employed. 
He notices Ogilby’s guess that the computed distances read a less 
number by omitting the lengths of the towns ; and, rejecting that 
idea as an insufficient explanation (as it certainly is), he concludes 
* Notes and Queries, i. xii. 195. 
+ As when he describes 15 '2 miles as being “ quelque chose de plus que 14,” 
in Mesurcs Itineraires, chap. x. 
X De Morgan does not seem to have seen this book at all, as he refers to The 
Complete Tradesman, by H. H. (1684), as giving the lists of computed and 
measured miles, which this edition of Ogilby gives far more completely. 
