Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 6.djvu/406

ass NOTES AND QUERIES. 9»s.v1.<><-miss. mology is wholly overlooked. Yet with an inconsistency qluite English, in cc`i-pciczty and cd-pcicéous we s ow respect to what in cci-pcible we ignore-the short a. in cfipere, the root. I submit that, as regards words com- mencing with the prefix abs, in removing s from the prefix and attaching it to the radical (as in ab-scond and ab-stain) the dictionaries have quite unnecessarily misled the ignorant. “Convenience of pronuncia- tion” (to use Pnor. SKEAT’S expression) did not require this wanton disregard of ety- molo y, because there is no istinction in sound between abs-cond and ab-scond, or between abs-tain and ab-stain, and therefore there was no reason why the words should be s llabled wron ly. Were Cicero’s ‘ Epistle to Xtticusf v. 3, dictated to an amanuensis who did not know Latin, he would not, from the sound of the words, know whether to write abs te or ab ste in the sentence “Ibi mihi tuze literw binae redditae sunt tertio abs te die.” R. M. SPENCE, D.D. Manse of Arbuthnott, N .B. BENVELL BUEIAL REGISTER (9"* S. vi. 247). -The date in this extract should be 1742, not 1842. Brand, the historian of Newcastle, writing in 1789 of the parish of St. John ID that town, adds :- “There was a chapel and burying ground at Benwell in this parish, now both destroyed. ‘ The old tower of Benwell Hall] says Bourne, ‘was the place where the prior of Tinmouth resided some art- of the summer, and the chagel, which Mr. ghaftoe opens and supplies for t e good of the people of his villqge was the priors domestic cha el.’ A Mr. al arner ` ` p g occurs as minister A.D. 1680. It was supplied by the curate oi St. John’s till it was pulled down. There is a register book belonging to it ending A.D. 1742 at iresent, or very lately, in the possession of Mr. l-Rutter, attorney-at-law.” Last year, at the bishop’s garden party, I s nt best part of an hour in the seclusion olwthis well-kept burying-place, copying the inscriptions on the gravestones. RICHARD WELFOED. LIOATED MOUNDS (9*’“ S. v. 309, 399, 454; vi. 11, 76, 134, 170, 253).-My attention has lately been drawn to two communications on ‘Moated Mounds’ from MR. J. A. RUTTER in ‘N. & Q.,’ 9” S. v. 399, 454. If Mr. Clark’s attempted list of these mounds has never hitherto been criticized, it is only be- cause so little interest has been taken in the subject. No one can work at it without becoming aware of the inadequacy and in- accuracfy of his list as well as the baseless- ness o his conjecture that these mottes were Anglo-Saxon bur/Ls. The evidence for their Norman origin is overwhelming when once it is examined. An accurate list of these mottes (as I Iyrefer to call them for it is their proper orman name) would be of the greatest value ; but it can only be prepared y those who have local knowledge. I hope shortly to *publish such a list for Yorkshire. And as I s ould be very glad to communicate with those who are working at this subject in othe;°J>arts of the country, I give my name and dress. The Transactions of the Scottish Society of Antiquaries for 1900 will contain a paper entering fully into the diB`erences between An glo-Saxon burlzs and early Norman castles. M . AR RS MITAGE. Westholm, Rawdon, Leeds. When at Penrith lately I noticed that there is a very deep and clearly defined moat round part of the castle, the ruins of which are on a hill close to the railway stat-ion on the south of the town. H. W. U. I.O.U. (9“‘ S. v. 475 ° vi. 74, 276).-I have already given my authority, viz., the forms by which in old precedent books a debtor admits his indebtedness. These forms, as I have shown, begin with the words “I owe unto," and, like the modern I.O.U., they are exceedingly short. I need hardly ploint to the abbreviated way of writing w ic is still as common amongst lawyers as it was amongst the scribes of t e Mi dle Ages. Men who wrote “exs. and ads.” for “executors and administrators” would soon turn “I owe unto” into “I.O.U.” S. O. Annv. INSTALLATION or A M IDWIFE (9*“ S. v. 475 ; vi. 9, 177, 274).-Surely MR. PEACHEY is guessing, and not repliyling to a question from efinite knowledge. e says that “ previous to 1511 the only licensing authorities for medical practitioners were the two uni- versities, and, within the City of London, the Guild of Physicians and Surgeons and the Barbers’ Compan .” What is the founda- tion of this assertionl, The Barber-Su rgeons’ Guild had no corporate authorit till it re- ceived its charter from King Hiiznry VIII. What does MR. PEACHEY mean b the Guild of Physicians and Surgeons? 'Iyhe original question was well answered in 9"‘ S. vi 9, except so far as the original authority of the bishops to grant the licences in question. I venture to suggest that this .episco al power over midwives barber-surgeons, herbalists physicians, and others who elonged to what we should now call the medical profession, was due to the fact that up to the sixteenth century nearly all this kind of work was done by the inmates of the religious houses ,The closing of the religious houses resulted