orle around his helmet; on his surcoat appear three lions, according to Gough's description (Sep. Mon. vol. i. part 2. p. 179.) Leland mentions, in his Itinerary, two or three tombs of the Bruces at rickering, one of whom with his wife lay in a chapel on the south side of the choir; "he had a garland about his helmet;" this description seems to identify the tomb with that now removed to the north side of the chancel.[1] It was still in the south chantry when Gough visited the church in 1785; but that chapel has been converted into a vestry, and the tomb displaced. Another tomb, described by Leland as in a chapel under an arch on the north side of the choir, was probably that of which the mutilated remains are now seen on the south side of the communion table, where it had been placed previously to Gough's visit, and the chapel destroyed. The more ancient effigy is not described by Leland, who, however, speaks of seeing "two or three tumbes of the Bruses," and this may be the third thus adverted to in his Itinerary. Gough describes it as a cross-legged figure on an altar-tomb against the north wall, in a round helmet with a frontlet, gorget of mail, plate armour, round elbow-pieces, mail apron and greaves; on the shield a chief dancetty. There was a branch of the Bruce family settled at Pickering; and Leland states that he saw the ruins of a manor-place there, called Bruce's Hall. These effigies claim the attention of the Yorkshire antiquary, and deserve to be carefully examined and identified.
The Rev. Edward Trollope gave the following account of the recent discovery of a mural painting in Lincolnshire, and exhibited coloured drawings, carefully executed when this curious work of art was first brought to light:—
"During the process of cleaning down the walls of Ranceby Church, near Sleaford, preparatory to their being fresh painted, so as to shew the stonework in the interior, portions of an older coating of plaster were dis- covered below the more modern surface, which was condemned. It appears that the walls had been prepared in so slovenly a manner for the reception of this second coating, that whenever any portions of the first still remained in a tolerably sound state, these were allowed to remain, although wholly concealed by the new work above them, until they were once more separated in my presence by a skilful workman, who, having discovered remnants of painting, in consequence of the flaking off of a portion of the upper surface, carefully removed the remainder, so as to disclose the figure represented by the drawing which I send for examination. It formed a part of a subject 20 feet in length, and 512 feet in breadth, enclosed by a red band or frame, and was painted in distemper upon the wall of the north aisle; but the only portion remaining perfect, or indeed intelligible, was one extremity (to the right), which is the subject of my drawings. When first the object seemingly resembling a bag caught my eye, I hastily imagined that the figure was that of Judas, and that the curious tufted monster was intended to portray the instigator of his betrayal; but upon observing the noble character so strongly stamped upon the countenance of this holy person by the artist, and after due consideration, I believed him to be St. Matthew, who, when painted as an Apostle, has usually a purse or bag in his hand, whilst the Book seemed to point to his character as an Evangelist, or Gospel writer, by the power of which the Devil was to be abased. The dress is
- ↑ Leland, Itin. vol. i. fol. 71.
