2°^ S. No 104., Dec. 2C. '57,] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



521 



ber, 1825, recording the death of Admiral Charles 

 Powel Hamilton, he is mentioned " as one of the 

 representatives of the Powel family, whose lineage 

 he traced as far back as a.b. 382. He was son of 

 Lord Anne Hamilton by the co-heiress of Sir 

 Thos. Powel of Broadway, and his descendants 

 may be found in the peerage of the illustrious 

 and ducal House of Hamilton. Howel Powel, a 

 younger branch, left two daughters co-heiresses ; 

 1. Mary, wife of John Dal ton, Esq. ; 2. Margaret, 

 wife of her cousin John Bevan, Esq." All their 

 descendants quarter the arms of Powel of BrSad- 

 way, viz., Gules, a lion rampant reguardant, or, 

 being those of their great ancestor Elistan, Prince 

 of Fferlix, as may be seen in Enderbie's Cambria 

 Triumphans, and most of the similar works on 

 Welsh genealogies. E. D. 



Londinopolis. — I have a copy of this work in 

 the original binding, and I believe it to be a per- 

 fect copy, although there is a like error in the 

 pagination ; not the same error, if Mr. OrroR 

 (2°"* S. iv. p. 470.) be correct, for my copy skips 

 from p. 124. (not 128.) to 301. But I believe it 

 to be a mere error in the pagination. The hiatus, 

 if there be an hiatus, occurs in what the Table of 

 Contents describes as the account " of the twenty- 

 six several Wards." Now, page 123. begins with 

 the " account of the eighteenth Ward," which con- 

 cludes page 124.; and page 301. begins with the 

 " nineteenth Ward." I may add that the Index 

 follows the present pagination. L. O. 



I think Mr. Geokgb Offor may see a perfect 

 copy of Howell's Londinopolis, if he visits the 

 curious old library of seventeenth century litera- 

 ture preserved in the parish church of Skipton in 

 Craven. When I was there I saw a copy which 

 seemed to be quite perfect, but I did not examine 

 it with much attention. By-the-bye has anyone 

 ever carefully looked over that library ? I was 

 in it for a short time about four years ago. I 

 think it will be found to be exceedingly rich in 

 pamphlets and sermons of the era of the great 

 civil war. Is there any printed catalogue ? I 

 think not. Glis P. Templ. 



Amber (2"^ S. iv. 454.) — Aikin {Dictionary of 

 Chemistry, i. 57.) says, amber is occasionally met 

 with in the gravel-beds near London, in which 

 case it is merely an alluvial product. Other no- 

 tices may be found in Tacitus {Germ., 45.), and 

 in Berzeiius {Traite de Chimie, vi. 589.). 



T. J. BUCKTON. 



Lichfield. 



Old Philcenium (2°'' S. iii. 388.) — The passage 

 referred to in Jeremy Taylor's sermon is as fol- 

 lows : 



" It is true he was in the declension of his age and 

 health ; but his very ruins were goodly ; they who saAV 



the broken heaps of Pompey's theatre, and the crushed 

 obelisks, and the old face of beauteous Philaanium, could 

 not but admire the disordered glories of such magnificent 

 structures, which were venerable in their very dust." 



Now does not Philajnium here referred to mean 

 PhilsB in Egypt, a long account of which will be 

 found in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman 

 Geography ? The description of the ruins is too 

 long to quote, but is peculiarly interesting. 



G. W. N. 



Alderley Edge. 



Bloreheath (2""^ S. iv. 472.) —In reply to your 

 correspondent's inquiry respecting the battle of 

 Bloreheath, I beg to mention that prior to the 

 publication of my recent work, Visits to Fields of 

 Battle in England of the Fifteenth Century, I 

 visited that of Bloreheath six times ; and I may 

 perhaps be allowed to state that I cannot believe 

 that Queen Margaret (called Margaret of Anjou) 

 was upon or near the field of battle at the time 

 when it took place. Such a circumstance is not 

 mentioned by our old chroniclers and annalists, 

 Fabyan, Hall, Holinshed, Speed, Grafton, or Stow- 

 But that is by no means all ; for ,we have the 

 positive evidence of the proceedings of the Par- 

 liament of Coventry (see Rot. Pari., 38 Hen. VI., 

 vol. V. p. 348.) that Queen Margaret and Prince 

 Edward were at the time of the battle at Eccles- 

 hall, which is eight miles and a half distant from 

 Bloreheath. Stow (p. 405.) also confirms that 

 statement. See also Holinshed (vol. i. p. 649.), 

 who mentions that the Queen was at the time at 

 Eccleshall, and that the King was at Coleshill in 

 Warwickshire. Some authors mention a rumour 

 that the Queen was then upon the tower of Muc- 

 clestone Church ; but that is not visible from the 

 field of battle, nor have I any reason to suppose 

 that, prior to the growth of the timber, it was 

 visible ; and as Mucclestone is a mile and a half 

 distant from Bloreheath, it was too far off for a 

 spectator to see it, from the tower of the church, 

 before the use of telescopes ; besides which, from 

 the position of Mucclestone, she could not have 

 fled from thence to Eccleshall without great risk 

 — almost a certainty — of being intercepted. I 

 therefore consider it quite an idle tale. 



I am not aware that I can communicate much 

 information of value respecting the battle beyond 

 what is contained in my recent work ; but if your 

 correspondent will write to me, and favour me 

 with his address, it will afford me much pleasure 

 to give him such information as may be in my 

 power. Richard Brooke. 



Canning Street, Liverpool. 



In reply to F. H. W.'s inquiry, I beg to say 

 that a paper on Bloreheath was read before the 

 Chester Architectural, Archaeological, and Historic 

 Society in 1850, and is published in Part II. of 

 their Journal. If F. H. W. has no other means 



