Page:Notes and Queries - Series 10 - Volume 5.djvu/168

 136

NOTES AND QUERIES,

s. v. FEB. 17.

was purchased by Admiral Sir Hyde Parker in 1801 ; he died 1807. The next proprietor, Edward Holland, pulled down the former house, and built the present. SIGMA.

GOLDEN ROOF AT INNSBRUCK (10 th S. v. 89). According to Baedeker,

" The ' Goldne Dachl,' a gilded copper roof, covering a rich late-Gothic balcony constructed in 1425, be- longs to a palace which Count Frederick of Tyrol cost of 30,000 ducats (about 14,000/.) in order to
 * with the empty pockets' is said to have built at a

refute the imputation in his nickname The

paintings on the outer wall represent the Emperor Maximilian and his two wives, and the well- executed armorial bearings in marble commemorate the restoration of the balcony by that emperor in 1504."

However, a local guide, published at Inns- bruck in 1890, says that Maximilian was the builder, and not merely the restorer of the balcony and its roof.

JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT.

Murray's 'Handbook for Southern Ger- many ' states that the Golden Roof is a sort of oriel window covered with a roof of gilt copper (not gold, as supposed by MES. A. HARRIS), which projects in front of the Fiirstenberg. It was built in 1425, by Frederick, Count of Tyrol, called in ridicule "with the Empty Purse/' who, "as the tra- dition runs, in order to show how ill-founded was the nickname, spent 30,000 ducats in this piece of extravagance, which probably rendered the sobriquet even more appro- priate than before." HENRIETTA COLE.

96, Philbeach Gardens, S.W.

According to Brockhaus's * Conversation Lexikon,' the nickname "of the Empty Pocket" is an invention of the seventeenth century, and the Golden Roof was erected by Maximilian I. (1486 - 1519). Frederick's pockets were pretty full when he died. Cf his biography in Wurzbach, vol. vi., with the older biography on the subject.

L. L K.

[MR. HARRY HEMS and ST. SWITHIN are als< thanked for replies.]

NELSON'S SIGNAL (10 th S. iv. 321, 370, 411 471, 533 ; v. 56). PROF. LAUGHTON allude to " the contemporary evidence of the ships logs," and he adds that in some instance they give the code numbers. Is it not ob vious that, if a man contradicts a statement he is bound to produce his proof, wit chapter and verse as to reference? PROI LAUGHTON does not do so. He does no even say distinctly that the required evidenc is in existence. He only says that in som instances code numbers are recorded. H

oes not say that those of this signal are. le says, ante, p. 56, that I think he ought o transcribe the logs. I of course hold him ound to prove the signal to have been what e says it was. As he has not done so, my aim conviction now is that he has no vidence to produce. If lie has, it only equires one line, furnishing the total signal n words, with "that" and "will" in code umbers, to satisfy readers of 'N. & Q.'

To help him by a good example, there is ne point on which I heartily apologize to im. I find he did not pronounce Nelson's grammar correct, as I thought he had. He pplies "correct" to the Pasco story, not to kelson. C. A. WARD.

Walthamstow.

IVY LANE, STRAND (10 th S. v. 81). DR, BRUSHFIELD'S interesting paper on this sub- ect suggests the inquiry whether any satisfac- ,ory explanation has been given of the ancient lame of this lane, Ulebrig, which is found n the decree of the Cardinal Archbishop Stephen Langton and the other prelates who irbitrated in the dispute between the Bishop )f London and the Abbot of Westminster respecting the limits of the parish of St. Mar- garet, 6 Hen. III., A.D. 1222. Can the mean- ng of this name be Woolbridge 1

The errors in Cunningham's 'Handbook' referring to Strand Bridge and Ivy Bridge, which have been indicated by DR. BRUSH- FIELD, were pointed out by the late J. G. Nichols in The Gentleman's, Magazine, 1852, part i. pp. 577-9. There is, however, no doubt that, after the bridges that spanned the Strand had been destroyed, the term 'bridge" was applied to the landing-piers at the river end of the two lanes.* Cunning- ham's mistake lay in confining his definition of ''bridge" to the piers, and thereby ex- cluding Stow's explanation of what the bridges originally were. I may add that Mr. Walford, and not Mr. Thornbury, was re- sponsible for the errors if errors they are, which is doubtful that DR. BRUSHFIELD has pointed out in the third volume of 'Old and New London.'

There is a brief, but accurate account of Ivy Lane at the time of its effacernent in Middlesex and Herts Notes and Queries, 1896, ii. 90, 91. W. F. PRIDE AUX.

If DR. BRUSHFIELD'S statement with re- gard to the "halfpenny" steamboats on the

pp. 486, 487, for evidence as to the identity of "bridge" with "stairs" or "landing-place" as early as 1610, and in the case of the Temple Bridge .much earlier.
 * See Mr. Nichols in Gent. Mag, 1852, part i-