Bag Britford Church. 
on the south side, the sill rising by three steps or breaks in its level 
which constituted the three seats, and the recess for the piscina 
being formed in the splay of the east jamb. The stone has been so 
much cleaned that it might be supposed new, but the arched canopy 
of the piscina is unsymmetrical, a peculiarity which would hardly 
be introduced in new work, and I am informed that the whole is a 
strict restoration.!. The basin of the piscina, which must have been 
sunk in the stone which formed the highest seat, has not been re- 
stored. On the north side of the chancel is the well-known altar- 
tomb which formerly was supposed to be that of Henry Stafford, 
Duke of Buckingham, who was executed in the reign of Richard III. 
(1483), a theory which appears to be now discredited. I have not 
gone into the question of the authentication of this tomb. It is 
backed by an ogee canopy of late character, and there seems to be 
no accordance between the base-mouldings of the canopy and those 
of the tomb itself. This may perhaps bear out the statement, in 
Brown’s Guide to Salisbury, that the tomb was removed from De 
Vaux College to its present site, in so much as the tomb and canopy 
do not appear to belong to each other. The canopy has the appearance 
of having belonged to a tomb recessed in a wall, though I know of 
no evidence that there ever was such a recess here. One of the old 
Decorated windows was found behind it and restored, and conse- 
quently part of the canopy now stands detached from the wall, which 
does not produce a very happy effect. Such an altar-tomb as this 
would as a rule stand against a wall without any canopy. 
A small effigy, of Purbeck marble, was found during the res- 
toration, and is now placed on the sill of a window on the north 
side of the chancel. It is in two pieces, and represents a male 
figure holding the stem of a cup. The cup, of which the upper part 
is broken, appears from its form not to be a chalice, and the figure 
from the absence of tonsure is believed not to be a priest. It is 
probably of the fourteenth century, and is an interesting example 
of that class of dwarf effigies to which the so-called “ boy bishop ” 
1This recess is so bare now that it is possible it may originally have had some 
ornamental features which have entirely disappeared. 
