Sept. 2. 1854.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



183 



was obeyed at Boston from 1678 to 1789. I 

 know it continued considerably later, but I find 

 no record beyond 1789. Pishey Thompson, 



Stoke Newington. 



WHICH IS THE OLDEST CHAEITABLE INSTITUTION 

 IN ENGLAND ? 



It appears by the recent proceedings in Chan- 

 cery, as reported in the Law Journal of November 

 last, that the House of St. Cross was refounded 

 by Henry de Blois, Bishop of Winchester, in 

 1157; and that even at that remote period the 

 charity was ancient, and it is now alleged that its 

 origin is lost in its antiquity. 



In De Blois's charter the following passages 

 occur, which probably may assist in obtaining a 

 date : 



« Henry, by the grace of God, Minister of the Church 

 of Winchester, to the venerable Lord in Christ, Raymond, 

 Master of the Hospital of Jerusalem, and his brethren in 

 due succession for ever. ... I deliver and commit to 

 Providence, and to the administration of yourself and 

 your successors, the Hospital of the Poor of Christ, which 

 I . . . have founded anew without the walls of Win- 

 chester, preserving its condition unchanged, so that as it 

 has been constituted by me, and has been confirmed by 

 those apostolic men of pious memory Pope Innocent and 

 Pope Lucius, the poor in Christ may there humbly and 

 devoutly serve God." 



If the Popes Lucius and Innocent here referred 

 to are the first of those names respectively (but 

 which is doubtful), then it would be manifest that 

 the hospital was erected soon after the conversion 

 of the inhabitants of this island to Christianity. 

 Lucius was named to succeed Cornelius as pope 

 in the year of Christ 252, and died a martyr. 

 Innocent was chosen in 402 ; he was a man of 

 great address and lively genius, and was distin- 

 guished after his death with the title of the blessed 

 Innocent. (Vide Bower.) 



Assuming the latter date, it would then seem 

 that the house was founded 700 years before the 

 time of De Blois. 



By the reports of the commissioners appointed 

 to inquire concerning charities, it appears that 

 there are only six institutions whose foundation is 

 ascertained to be prior to 1 157. St. Bartholomew, 

 Guildford, 1078; Cirencester about 1100; Ripon, 

 1109; St. Bartholomew, London, 1122; Nor- 

 thampton, 1138; St. Katherine, London, 1148. 

 Yet there are amongst the 8784 others of un- 

 known date, many stated as having existed " from 

 time immemorial," " time out of mind," as " of 

 very great antiquity," "extremely ancient," &c. 

 Probably amongst the latter there may be some 

 older than St. Cross, and I hope that there are 

 persons amongst the antiquarian readers of " N. 

 & Q." able and willing to throw light on the ob- 

 scurity. 



It would also be interesting to know why and 

 when the name was changed from Christ's Hospital 

 to that of St. Cross. Henry Edwakds, 



ANGLO-SAXON TYPOGEAPHY. 



Is it not time, in reprinting Anglo-Saxon books, 

 to discard both the accents and the two forms of 

 th found in the old manuscripts ? 



As there is in agitation at this moment a plan 

 for printing, in one uniform edition, all the re- 

 mains of Anglo-Saxon literature, published and 

 unpublished, it is desirable that so important a 

 question as that which I have proposed above 

 should be clearly and satisfactorily answered, be- 

 fore so serious and valuable a work should be 

 begun. By way of beginning the subject, there- 

 fore, I will give my own reasons why the ac- 

 cents should be omitted, and the old forms of 

 all the letters exchanged for those which are now 

 in use. 



I. Accents. 



1. It is not a feature of the English language 

 to employ accents, and Anglo-Saxon is but En- 

 glish of ah earlier date. 



2. Accents are not found at all in many Anglo- 

 Saxon manuscripts. 



3. Where they are found, there is no certain 

 rule observed in their use : in the same page we 

 find the same word used with or without an ac- 

 cent, as the case may be. At this moment I have 

 before me, for and for, fyr and fr, eac and edc. 

 Sometimes two accents are found on the same 

 vowel ; and within the same page the same word 

 occurs with only one accent, and again with none 

 at all. 



4. If it be said that accents distinguish sounds, 

 as is (ice), from is, I reply, the context did it 

 sufficiently, as in the present day. 



II. The Theta or th. 



1. There is no uniform use of the Anglo-Saxon 

 ■S and b : some manuscripts seem to prefer one, 

 and consequently abound in instances of that one, 

 whilst other manuscripts prefer the other; but 

 even here they are not consistent with themselves, 

 for every now and then they use the other, which 

 they had seemed to have rejected. 



2. In the same page the same word is found 

 written both with « and \>. Thus, tJa and J^a, •Ster 

 and ^aer, occur repeatedly in the same page. 



3. The endeavour to make one to be initial, 

 whilst the other is medial or final, utterly fails ; 

 for we find nemna}> and nemna'5, &c. in the same 

 manuscript. 



4. To say that \> represents the hard sound, as 

 of th in that, whilst tS describes the softer sound, as 

 of th in thing, is equally futile ; for we find 1?s£t 

 and i>3et in the same page. 



