Page:The book of public arms, 1915.pdf/19

that if we had any certain knowledge, it would, in the case of London, be traceable to such an origin; possibly through a mistaken imitation of the case at Norwich, where there would appear to be some real reason and foundation for its use. But there is not a trace of any official sanction for the use of such an embellishment by any English town. The case of Dublin is rather different. I am not quite sure who actually wears the garment there, but the late Ulster King of Arms, Sir Arthur Vicars, K.C.V.O., wrote to me that he would have no hesitation in certifying the arms of the City of Dublin with this cap, and for that reason it is included, as it is used, in the illustration. Whether or not the present Ulster King of Arms holds the same view I am quite unaware, but there certainly is nothing in the way of authority at present officially recorded for it. It is worthy of note that none of the cities l have mentioned have any crest, consequently there is no reason for helmet or mantling to surmount the arms, and the absence of one may account for the presence of the other. The City of London, after, even for official purposes, making great use for the last hundred years of the fur cap, has now decided to discourage its use, and prefer on all occasions its bogus crest.

Widespread as is the use of the mural crown in connection with municipal arms, there was, until a few months ago, no authority whatever for its use in this country. Since the seventeenth century and its haphazard granting of personal crests upon caps of maintenance and out of coronets passed away, there was until quite recently an unwritten law and a rigidly enforced practice that the mural crown should be exclusively reserved for grants of crests to officers of the army of the rank of General, and for such cases the mural crown has been religiously reserved. On the Continent however, it has always been regarded as a regular adjunct of a civic coat of arms, some writers even elaborating rules as to the number of turrets and towers to be included in the crown according to the rank and character of the town as a Royal residence, capital city, fortified town, or otherwise. I doubt if these regulations have any real authority, but one does come across them conscientiously asserted, but they had no acceptance whatever in England, Scotland, or Ireland, where the rule held which I have quoted. This rule, however, has now gone by the board, for Lyon King of Arms, in the exercise of his discretion, but which I cannot but think was a very unfortunate decision, has matriculated in his register the arms of both Paisley and St Andrews, the escutcheon in each case being surmounted by a mural crown. To Lyon King of Arms and his fearless refusal to be bound by convention the heraldry of to-day owes much, and how much the future only will reveal, but I cannot help regretting this decision of his, because it smashes a very cherished privilege of army grants. Had Lyon, following the continental practice, introduced the walled and turreted crown one meets with in Germany, the matter might have been different, but he has matriculated the army crown pure and simple. This bad example has now been followed by the College of Arms, for in the grant of arms to the London County Council a mural crown is included. In this case it was done by Royal Licence. It is to be hoped that Germany will not regard this crown as evidence of the fortification of London.

In the use of supporters with impersonal arms opinion has changed. Supporters