_Mounds, Munts, Mount_ (Vol. iii., p. 187.).--If R. W. B. will refer to Mr. Lower's paper on the "Iron Works of the County of Sussex" in the second volume of the _Sussex Archaelogical Collections_, he will find that iron works were carried on in the parish of Maresfield in 1724, and probably much later. It is therefore probable that the lands which he mentions have derived their names from the pit-mounts round the mouths of the pits through which the iron ore was raised to the surface. In Staffordshire and Shropshire the term _munt_ is used to denote fire-clay of an inferior kind, which makes a large part of every coal-pit mount in those counties. If the same kind of fire-clay was found in the iron mines of Sussex, it is not necessary to suggest the derivation of the word _munt_. I take this opportunity of suggesting to MR. ALBERT WAY that the utensil figured in page 179. of the above-mentioned work is not an ancient mustard-mill, but the upper part of an iron mould in which cannon-shot were cast. The iron tongs, of which a drawing is given in page 179., were probably useful for the purpose of drawing along a floor recently cast shot while they were too hot to be handled. V. X. Y. _San Graal_ (Vol. iii., pp 224. 281.).--Roquefort's article of nine columns in his _Glos. de la L. Rom._, is decisive of the word being derived from _Sancta Cratera;_ of _Graal, Greal_, always having meant a vessel or dish and of all the old romancers having understood the expression in the same meaning, namely, _Sancta Cratera, le Saint Graal, the Holy Cup or Vessel_, because, according to the legend, Christ used it at the Paschal Supper; and Joseph of Arimathea afterwards employed it to catch the blood flowing from his wounds. Many cities formerly claimed the honour of possessing this fabulous relic. Of course, as Price shows, it was an old Oriental magic-dish legend, imitated in the West. GEORGE STEPHENS. Stockholm. _Epitaph on the Countess of Pembroke_ (Vol. iii., pp 262. 307.).--It has been asserted that the second part of this epitaph was written by Lady Pembroke's son; among whose poems, which were published in 1660, the whole piece was included. (Park's _Walpole_, ii. 203. _note_; Gifford's _Ben Jonson_, viii. 337.) But it is notorious, that no confidence whatever can be placed in that volume (see this shown in detail in Mr. Hannah's edit. of Poems by Wotton and Raleigh, pp. 61. 63.); nor have we any right to distribute the two parts between different authors. There are at least _four_ {414} old copies of the whole; two in MSS. which are referred to by Mr. Hannah; the one in Pembroke's _Poems_; and the one in that Lansdowne MS., where it is ascribed to William Browne. Brydges assigned it to Browne, when he published his _Original Poems_ from that MS. at the Lee Priory Press in 1815, p. 5. Upon the whole, there seems to be more direct evidence for Browne than any other person. R. * * * * * MISCELLANEOUS.