212 THE SHALL-CROSS. 



the same indications of a deviation of the boundary exist here 

 as at Bow Stones, and the same initials, H. L., appear upon 

 both monuments. The only difference is that here we have 

 the corner of two parishes only, and therefore but a single 

 cross. We may, therefore, assume that in 1720 H. L. made 

 both these deviations, and that is why he initialled both monu- 

 ments. But even if this assumption were wrong, the cross would 

 still be the " Shall-cross," as wherever it was upon the boundary 

 line it must have been in Shallcross. 



Lest it should be thought from the last remark that I have 

 narhed this cross the " Shall-cross " after the hamlet, let me 

 say at once that I trust to prove the very opposite, namely, 

 that the hamlet derived its name from this little cross, which 

 had stood for a thousand years to commemorate the mission 

 of Paulinus, until, even subsequently to the year 1720, it was 

 ruthlessly removed. Again, the deviation I have suggested 

 alone enabled this to be done, for few would venture to 

 remove a parish boundary mark. 



We will now turn to the evidence of the Wilne cross. The 

 remains of this are represented by the font in Wilne church, 

 and, as Mr. G. le Blanc Smith, in a most interesting paper to 

 vol. xxv. of this Journal, p. 217, demonstrates, the conversion 

 from cross to font must have occurred as early as in Norman 

 times, for it is mounted upon a base of that period. But he 

 and all others who have written upon it, have been content to 

 leave the question of the original site of the cross itself, as a 

 subject for interesting speculation only. The solution of the 

 problem is, however, not at all difficult. Following the rule 

 that the cross must have stood upon the parish boundary line, 

 we find that at almost the nearest point to Wilne church, there 

 is a place still called " Shacklecross," and here, no doubt, it 

 stood ; and additional proof of this will be offered later on. 



Its conversion in Norman times is presumptive evidence that 

 it was then a very old cross, for no one would thus mutilate 

 anything of so grand a workmanship as this great cross must 

 have been unless it had fallen into decay. This is one of the 



