The lamp of the alleged tomb of Constantius Chlorus was the subject of a communication by Mr. Albert Way to the York meeting of the Archæological Institute in 1846, in which he compared the ignited lamp said to have been found therein, with the story of a similar sepulchral lamp in a Roman family tomb, beneath the site of the ancient Castellum Priscum in the province of Cordova, as communicated to the Institute by Mr. Wetherell of Seville. It seems well worthy the attention of modern archæologists to ascertain what foundation in fact exists for the statements advanced by ancient writers as to the possibility of preparing a lamp that would burn for centuries in the tomb. Mr. Way remarks that the curious discovery communicated from Seville is unfortunately not authenticated by the observation at the time of any person skilled either in natural history or archæology. Some, however, may consider the tale of the sepulchre of Chlorus, though rejected by Drake and others, as not wholly unworthy of consideration; and Mr. Way suggests the possibility of a substance having been compounded which, on the admission of purer air to the tomb, became for a short time ignited. An abstract of his interesting communication is in the _Athenæum_ for 8th August, 1846. The prince whose tomb is said to have been discovered near the church of St. Helen's on the Walls, in York, was the H. Valerius Constantius who came to York about a century after the death of Severus, and was father of Constantine the Great. Let me now ask where the story may be found of "The bright lamp that lay in Kildare's holy fane, And burned through long ages of darkness and storm?" W. S. G. Newcastle-upon-Tyne. KIBROTH HATTAVAH AND WADY MOKATTEB: NUM. XI. 26. CRITICALLY EXAMINED. (Vol. iv., p. 481.; Vol. v., p. 31.) In order that the readers of "N. & Q." may have an opportunity of judging for themselves of the question between DR. TODD and myself, as to the identity of Kibroth Hattavah and Wady Mokatteb, it will be necessary, in the first place, that a more comprehensive view should be taken of the camp of Israel than DR. TODD'S criticism seems to imply. A population of six hundred thousand, besides women and children, must have occupied a larger extent of ground than a single valley; and the valley which is called _par excellence_ Wady Mokatteb would by no means suffice for the accommodation of half the multitude, were it not joined to many other valleys,--both sides, by means of narrow windings. In the second place, it must be borne in mind that the "Tabernacle was pitched without the camp, afar off from the camp" (Exod. xxxiii. 7.); a circumstance which DR. TODD overlooked, which made him hazard the strange statement that I "did not explain how Eldad and Medad were in Wady Mokatteb, more than Moses and the rest of the seventy."