“Notwithstanding, however, as Strype tells us, in his most interesting ‘_Life of John Stow_,’ prefixed to his ‘_Survey_,’ volume i., page 15, that the worthy old Citizen, and Master Rouge Dragon, were well acquainted, and communicated their labours to each other, yet he says also, that Stow would not be persuaded concerning the Dutch blazon of the London Arms, but affirmed them to have been always the same. I have but two other proofs to bring forward concerning these bearings; and then I will no longer trespass upon your long-tried patience, but return back with all speed to our _memorabilia_ of London Bridge. “The first of these is, that in Mr. J. B. Nichols’s ‘_Brief Account of the Guildhall of the City of London_,’ London, 1819, octavo, we are told, at page 34, that in the Eastern Crypt of that building, the groinings of the roof meet in bosses carved with Armorial Ensigns; some being those of King Edward the Confessor, and others those of the City of London. ‘It is worthy of remark,’ adds the Author of this volume, in the same place, ‘that the Arms of London represented in the bosses on the side aisles _have_ the dagger, while all those in the centre aisle are _without_ it.’ I will make no other commentary upon this, than, that part of the crypt is said to have been built antecedent to the reign of King Richard II., or, probably, formed part of the ancient Guildhall, erected, as some suppose, in 1189; the present building being commenced, as Stow tells us in his ‘_Survey_,’ volume i., page 558, in 1411, during the reign of Henry IV. The last evidence which I have to cite on this subject, is a small, but rare tract in the British Museum, entitled ‘_The Citie’s Advocate in this Case, or Question of Honour and Armes; whether Apprenticeship extinguisheth Gentry?_’ London, 1629, 4to. The Author of this volume is supposed to have been that John Philipot, or Philpott, whom I before mentioned, who was created Somerset Herald, on July the 8th, 1624, and who died on the 25th of November, 1645. He engraves both the banner of St. Paul, supported by an effigy of Robert Fitz-Walter, and the Arms as they are now borne, for the Ensigns of London; and states that they were ‘a copy of that which an old imperfect larger volume at the Office of Armes containeth.’ He cites this record in proof of Stow’s veracity in explaining the weapon to signify the Sword of St. Paul; and adds that his effigy as ‘titularie patron of London, aduanced itself into the standard, and upon the shield were those well-known armories of the crosse and weapon.’ It is, perhaps, almost unworthy of mention, that Edward Hatton, in his ‘_New View of London_,’ London, 1708, 8vo., volume i., in the inscription to the frontispiece representing the City Arms, blazons them ‘Argent, a Cross Gules: on y^e 1st quarter a sword (by some falsly called y^t of St. Paul, by others y^e dagger of Sr. Wm. Walworth; but I take it to represent y^t of Justice) of y^e