490 JOURNAL OF THE PLYMOUTH INSTITUTION, 
upon the character of the work for the date of the Drake arms. 
Here is the direct proof: 
1670-71 John Somerton paid £6 for cutting the arms of the 
king, town, and Drake for the Conduit without the Old Town Gate 
this year rebuilt. 
The only arms entered as being cut for a Conduit at the earlier 
date are those of the king and town. 
1602-3 Item for Cuttinge and settinge vp of 
the Kinges and Townes Armes in the new 
Cundyte : : : . vi xis vid 
There was no thought of commemorating Drake then. In 
1639-40 the arms on the “Conduit without Old Town Gate” 
were new painted, and this further identifies the position of those 
cited in the entry. 
There is a curious entry concerning this 1671 Conduit in William 
Allen’s MS. diary :— 
The conduit without y°® old town Gate new built by W™ Cotton 
major* alsoe a new pipe added to bring in more water to y° Town 
and all y* had y® water before paid 10 yeres rent before hand 
towards it. 
Contemporary evidence, real and alleged, thus carries us no 
further than the simple statement of the Official Records that 
under his contract Drake ‘brought in” the water, a phrase of 
itself indefinite, and for the full meaning of which we must look 
elsewhere. One may bring a thing to a place of his own motion, 
or simply as an agent; precisely as we say now indifferently of a 
capitalist, an architect, or a contractor, ‘“ He built that house,” but 
with a different meaning to each application of the term which the 
context of fact or statement can alone supply. Here it is equally 
true to say of the Corporation or of Lampen or of Drake that 
they brought in the water; and the special application to Drake is 
limited by the considerations already stated to the work done and 
paid for. 
We now turn to tradition, the value of which when duly tested 
and confirmed no one can deny, ‘Tradition, however, cannot be 
* Here Cotton is said to do what was simply done in his mayoralty, 
