202 THE SHALL-CROSS. 



Mr. Haslam offered to photograph it for these pages, but an 

 unexpected difficulty arose ; the cross would not pass through 

 the heavy base stone, and the latter would not pass over the 

 capital. All attempts to remove the capital only disclosed that 

 it was deeply dowelled into the head of the cross, and Mr. Cox's 

 men were of opinion that to persist would result in splitting the 

 relic. Mr. Haslam was therefore restricted to photographing 

 that portion, exactly four feet, which could be raised above the 

 base stone. Hence the illustration in the plate is but four-fifths 

 of the full length. 



For 4 feet of its length it is cylindrical, with a girth of 

 35 inches at the foot, tapering to 32 inches at a point 13 inches 

 from the present top. Here it is encircled by a double roll 

 moulding 3^ inches in breadth, and immediately above that 

 the stone is chamfered to a square, which gradually narrows 

 to 7 inches at the top. Upon each face of the chamfered 

 portion is a compartment formed of a single moulding, follow- 

 ing the lines of its face, thus in form resembling a staple. 

 Across one of these compartments, not shown in the illustra- 

 tion, the initials "H L" above the date 1720* have been 

 neatly carved. 



This cross is of a well-known type, of which Mr. J. Romilly 

 Allen, F.S.A., wrote: "Judging from the relative number of 

 monuments of this class in each county [Derbyshire, Cheshire, 

 Staffordshire, Nottinghamshire, and Cumberland], it is difficult 

 to avoid the conclusion that the type had its origin in Cheshire 

 or Staffordshire, and it is therefore Mercian rather than 

 Northumbrian,"! and he adds a list of the twenty examples 

 then known to him, but he only credits Derbyshire with one 

 example. 



The following table of twenty-six specimens, including six 

 specimens in this county, without in any way aspiring to be 

 comprehensive, may be sufficient for the object of this paper, 

 which is special rather than general : — 



* The last two figures are not quite distinct. 



I Chester Archaeological Journal, vol. v., p. 145. 



