imagination, being one of early XVIth century form. Edward Bolton in 1610 fails to mention the sword at all, though he speaks of the jupon and two shields (see pages 151 and 152, Figs. 185 and 186). Somner in 1640 makes no mention of the achievements. Francis Sandford, writing in 1677, speaks of the other armaments above the tomb, but omits to speak of the sword.
J. Dart, in his "History and Antiquities of the Cathedral Church of Canterbury," 1726, shows the sword scabbard hanging with the rest of the panoply; but he does not mention them in the letterpress. W. Gostling, in "A Walk in and about the City of Canterbury," 1744, says: "The sword itself is said to have been taken away by Oliver Cromwell"; while R. Gough, in his "Sepulchral Monuments, etc.," published in 1786, distinctly states that it was taken away by Cromwell. Stothard, in 1817, again uses the expression "is said to have been taken away," instead of the definite statement made by Gough. Within the recollection of the present writer, the wildest stories as to the whereabouts of the missing sword from the Black Prince's tomb have been in circulation, one being, that in the year 1842 it was discovered by a Scottish lawyer in the possession of a blacksmith close to Appleby. The blacksmith refused to sell it, but promised at his death to leave it to the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury. Either the mysterious blacksmith has never died, or the Scottish lawyer-antiquary invented the story of the sword; for, despite earnest enquiries, nothing further can be ascertained of either the sword, the lawyer, or the blacksmith. Another story of the Black Prince's sword evidences the most remarkable lack of observation on the part of those who were credited at the time with antiquarian knowledge. A sword with a waved blade and a typical hilt of the XVIIth century, now in the armoury of Windsor Castle, though formerly in the collection of King George IV at Carlton House was, in the inventory of that collection, described as having been the sword of the Black Prince, taken from Canterbury Cathedral. This extraordinary error was accepted as fact, and even as late as 1875 Mr. John Latham endorsed the foolish mistake by adding a note to the Windsor inventory that "there is no reason why this attribution should not be quite genuine." In 1896 Her Majesty Queen Victoria, prompted by the late Dean of Canterbury, allowed a copy of this weapon to be made, in order that it might be placed with the other achievements of the Black Prince over his tomb. However, thanks to the emphatic protest of Viscount Dillon and the late Sir Richard Holmes, who were consulted as to the age of the weapon, the consecration of this obvious error was fortunately prevented. The description of perhaps
