_Arms of the See of York_ (Vol. viii., p. 34.).--I was about to send a note to "N. & Q.," pointing out that Mr. Knight, in his heraldic illustrations to 2 _Hen. IV._, in his _Pictorial Edition of Shakspeare_, has given the modern bearings of the see of York to Archbishop Scroope, instead of those which belonged to that date, when I observed a Query from TEE BEE, asking the date and origin of the _change_ of arms which took place. I am sorry that I am unable to give any authority for my statement, but I believe it to be not the less true, that the change in question took place when Cardinal Wolsey came to the see. Nor can I give any farther reason for that change than the notorious jealousy of the Cardinal towards the superior rank of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Up to this period the arms of the two sees were precisely the same, though TEE BEE gives the number of crosses "patee fitchee" on the pall for difference; I should be glad to know whether there is good authority for this statement. The present arms of the see evidently have reference to the dedication of the ancient cathedral church to St. Peter. H. C. K. ---- Rectory, Hereford. _"Up, Guards, and at 'em!"_ (Vol. v., p. 426.).--These oft-quoted words have already engaged the attention of the readers of "N. & Q." Your frequent correspondent C. (Vol. v., p. 426.) is of opinion that the Duke _did_ make use of these, or equivalent, words. The following extract I have copied from an article in the June number of _Bentley's Miscellany_. It will be found at p. 700. as a foot-note to a clever article, one of a series, entitled "Random Recollections of Campaigns under the Duke of Wellington," written by an officer of the second brigade of Guards. "The expression attributed to the Duke of 'Up, guards, and at them again!' I have good reason for _knowing_ was never made use of by him. He was not even _with_ the brigade of Guards in question at the _time_ they rose from their recumbent position to attack the French column in their front, and therefore could not well have thus addressed them. I never heard this story till long after, on my return to England, when it was related by a lady at a dinner-table; probably it was the invention of some goodly Botherby. I remember denying my belief at the time, and my view has since been sufficiently confirmed. Besides, the words bear no internal evidence of the style either of thought or even expression of him to whom they were attributed." The invention of the goodly Botherby has prospered! CUTHBERT BEDE, B. A.