312 The Customs of Four Manors of the Abbey of Lacock. 



King, and as he died about 1204 we are tied down to a date earlier 

 than this for the composition of the " old roll " of Bishopstrow. 

 But we are confronted with the further question, " Why is this 

 service mentioned under Bishopstrow, which had no connection 

 with Zeals?" Again, Lacock Abbey, as far as I have been able 

 to ascertain, never had any interest in the manor of Zeals, and in 

 the "new roll" of Bishopstrow no entry corresponding to this 

 occurs. A possible explanation suggests itself in this way. John 

 Fitz John, son of John Fitz Geoflry, succeeded his father in 

 February, 1258-9. He rebelled, and forfeited his lands, which 

 were granted to Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester. During the 

 interval, if any, which elapsed between his forfeiture and the 

 granting of his lands to de Clare, Alfred de Nichol might be 

 reckoned to hold, not of him, but of the tenant in capite, who in 

 this case, was the aged Ela, Countess of Salisbury, at that time 

 living in retirement at Lacock, having resigned the abbacy of the 

 house in 1256. We know that neither her son nor grandson, both 

 of whom predeceased her, were able to enjoy the Earldom of 

 Salisbury, winch remained to Ela till her death in 1201. The 

 service of Alfred of Lincoln thus accruing bo the count ess after her 

 profession at Lacock might be reckoned during her lifetime as part 

 of the possessions of the house, and be entered under Bishopstrow, 

 as the abbey estate nearest, geographically, to Zeals. It probably 

 never was more than a paper claim, and — as said before — it does 

 not appear again, but if the above reasoning be correct, 1 we get the 

 date of the old roll of Bishopstrow, and also of Heddington, as 

 within one year or two of 1200. 



As regards the "new roll." we shall not. I think, be far out. if 

 we connect- its compilation with the inquisitions taken in 1280 for 

 the hundred rolls; since something less than a generation elapses 

 between the two rolls,- and these enquiries would be an obvious 

 opportunity to revise the former return, if it required correction. 



1 It is only ri-,'ht to say that the whole argument is slender : Alfred of 

 Lincoln's death, however, ^'ives us an inferior limit of date. 



3 In some cases the tenant is ilio same in L960 and L280; in some others 

 the L280 tenant is son of that of T2G0. 



