It is quite impossible to understand how it was that William Edie, the Abbot elected through Cromwell’s influence,[79] allowed the Commissioners to be misled. We might have expected that his sense of obligation to his patron would have led him to make a full disclosure, though we shall hardly blame him for not doing so. But for him to expect that he could successfully conceal the true state of things from such an administration as that of Cromwell argues more simplicity than we should expect to find in one of Cromwell’s nominees. Through some means, however, the first set of officials was hoodwinked. But the success of the monks was short-lived. The Chancellor received information from some source unknown to us, which led him to order a second investigation. A tradition survived at the Office of First-Fruits and Tenths that the Liber Regis, into which were copied many of the Returns of the Commissioners, was transcribed by a monk of Westminster.[80] Dr. Boston was Abbot of Westminster at the time, and if the tradition represents the truth he may well have seen the survey of his old Abbey of Burton while it was being written out. He would at once recognise its incompleteness and we may be sure would lose no time in giving information to the authorities. Or Dan Richard Gorton, one of the monks of Burton for whom Cranmer wrote to Cromwell on August 15th, 1535, begging the Priory of Worcester, may have given a hint.[81] At any rate, Chancellor Audley ordered a second valuation to be made. The new officials he sent would, obviously, endeavour to raise all the figures they possibly could: that was the object of their mission. That they were not able to do so in the cases we have mentioned, while they succeeded in doing so in the great majority of cases, taken in conjunction with the fact that they added a considerable number of new items, seems to indicate that the monastic accounts were well kept and the estates well managed; and that probably the way the second commissioners obtained their higher figures was by discovering, by help given to them, that many more lands, tenements, etc., belonged to the Abbey than the first commissioners had been informed of. The impression is one not of falsified, but of incomplete, returns.
The difference between the two surveys is not so great as regards spiritualities, but again the chief increase arises in connection with Burton-on-Trent, the tithes of which are raised from £23 to £33. The tithes of Abbots Bromley are correctly given in the first survey, but the second commissioners discovered £2 6s. 8d. from Cauldon Chapel. They failed, however, to note that the 13s. 4d. from Grindon should be 14s.,[82] and the 16s. from Repton Priory[83] is overlooked altogether. The amount left for the Vicar of Abbots Bromley was £5 1s. 8d.[84]
On the demesne at Shobnall Grange the pasture is worth more than twice the arable land. There are two water-mills worth £12 each at Burton-on-Trent. The total value of the demesnes is £48 13s. 4d. in the first survey and £51 10s. in the second. A water-mill stood at Bromley Hurst and another in the town of Derby. A district of Burton called “Vico Nativorum” is mentioned, though Nativi are seldom mentioned in the Burton Chartularies of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The record that Abbot Thomas de Packington (1281–1305) gave to the Abbey of Polesworth “Henry our native” with all his belongings, is exceptional. The tenement in London, from which £2 rent was received, was probably the “Town House” of the Abbey. The ten villani of Cauldwell in the twelfth century had to provide between them a horse to London for their lord the Abbot. The Court perquisites amount to £3 6s. 8d.—over half the total amount for the county.
The outgoings may be seen from the table on the next page. They were computed at £33 8s. 8d. temporalities, and £55 13s. 4½d. spiritualities. When the total of £89 2s. 0½d. is contrasted with the Chancellor’s enhanced total income of £501 7s. 0½d. (or £513 19s. 4½d. as it appears it ought to have been) we see that he could well afford to spare himself the trouble of investigating it and to pass it with the contemptuous remark at the foot of his more profitable survey, “Mem. to deducte owte of thys boke ye allowaunces accordinge to ye olde boke.” That the outgoings apparently were not investigated, or the “corrected” survey substituted for the one found erroneous, but merely attached to it, taken in conjunction with the mistakes made in the reckoning of the totals (both the spiritualities and temporalities appear to be wrong), suggests that the new valuation was hurriedly made while the work of summarising and digesting was in progress by the Exchequer officials.
BURTON-ON-TRENT DISBURSEMENTS
Part 1 of table
| Spiritual. | |||||||||
| King (Sheriff’s Aids) | Corrody | Officials | |||||||
| £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | |
| Church of Burton | |||||||||
| Manor of Burton | 1 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 13 | 4 | |||
| Town of Burton | 3 | 6 | 8 | ||||||
| Mickleover, etc. | 6 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 8 | ||||
| Allestree | 6 | 8 | 13 | 4 | |||||
| Anslow | 2 | 0 | |||||||
| Bromley Hurst | 6 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Stapenhill | 13 | 4 | |||||||
| Sallow, Chantry Chapel | |||||||||
| Abbots Bromley | |||||||||
| Ilam | |||||||||
| Abbey of Burton | 3 | 6 | 8 | ||||||
| Branstone, etc | 2 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Withington and Pothlac | 6 | 8 | |||||||
| £2 | 2 | 0 | £3 | 6 | 8 | £28 | 0 | 0 | |
Part 2 of table
| Temporal | |||||||||
| Bishop’s fees | Dean and Chapter | Archdeacon’s fees | |||||||
| £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | |
| Church of Burton | 3 | 4 | |||||||
| Manor of Burton | |||||||||
| Town of Burton | |||||||||
| Mickleover, etc. | 5 | 4 | |||||||
| Allestree | 1 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 8 | ||||
| Anslow | |||||||||
| Bromley Hurst | |||||||||
| Stapenhill | 5 | 0 | |||||||
| Sallow, Chantry Chapel | |||||||||
| Abbots Bromley | 6 | 8 | 6 | 13 | 4 | 11 | 1 | ||
| Ilam | 3 | 4 | |||||||
| Abbey of Burton | 1 | 2 | 2½ | ||||||
| Branstone, etc | |||||||||
| Withington and Pothlac | |||||||||
| £3 | 9 | 4½ | £6 | 13 | 4 | 17 | 9 | ||
Part 3 of table