The spiritual income came from the parishes of Trentham (£12 3s. 4d.) and Barleston (£6 14s. 4d.) in Staffordshire, Barkeley in Leicestershire (£5 13s. 4d.), and Sutton in Derbyshire (£12 13s. 4d.). The amount left to Sutton was £4 16s. 8d. From Trentham came Easter dues, £3; tithes of grass, £6 13s. 4d.; tithes of sheep, £2 10s.; and oblations, 10s. From Barlaston came Easter dues, 13s. 4d., tithes of grass and hay, £5 0s. 8d.; tithes of sheep, 13s. 4d.; oblations, 3s.; lesser tithes (called “White Tythes”), 3s.
The payment from Barkeley is described as “extra ecclesiam predictam appropriat’ monasterio Prat’ Leic’”; and that from Sutton was from glebe and tithes of grass.
The spiritual payments included 10s. synodals from Trentham and 10s. 7d. synodals and procurations to the Bishop of Lichfield; 13s. 4d. to the Archdeacon of Stafford; £3 17s. 4d. every third year to the Bishop as visitation fees; £2 13s. 4d. to the Priory of Tutbury for Sutton, and £1 to the Prior of St. John of Jerusalem for the same church. 7d. annually is paid to the heirs of Lord Mountjoy out of the glebe at Sutton. The 16s. 8d. paid by Hulton Abbey (p. 107) does not appear in the receipts, nor the 20s. from Dalbury (p. 167).
The valuation after the Dissolution (Monasticon, vi, 397) amounted to £156 8s. 10d. Omissions are the rents at Kybbulston, Blurton, Cokenage, Newstead, Hanchurch, and Mere. Additions are rents at Wyttemore, 4s.; Meyford, 1s.; Schebrige (crofts), 4s.; Wall Grange, £6 13s. 4d., Bradborne, £1 1s. 8d. At Trentham Manor the demesne and mill had increased to £32 15s. 10d., and rents had increased to no less than £44 13s. 1½d. Trentham Rectory also had increased to £15 15s. 4d. Rents at Longton had increased to £2 8s. 6d., at Chaldon to £3 6s. 8d., at Newcastle to £7 10s. 4d., at Clayton Gryffin to £14 10s. 2d. Perquisites of the Court are 7s. 10d. Barleston Church had fallen in value to £2. The other items are practically identical.
Tutbury Priory
Tutbury was another house which had always had aristocratic connections, and its history had been influenced by its proximity to Tutbury Castle, one of the great houses of the Dukes of Lancaster. Its dependence on St. Peter-sur-Dive was ended in consequence of the French Wars, though Lancaster had some difficulty to enforce his authority.
On a vacancy occurring in 1337 in the headship of the Priory Henry Earl of Lancaster claimed the presentation, alleging that the Prior who had just resigned had been appointed on his nomination. The monks claimed the right of election, and asserted that the last Prior, though he had been nominated by Lancaster, had been rejected and another elected, whose election, however, had been set aside by the Abbot of the parent house of St. Peter-super-Divam. Against this exercise of authority on the part of the parent house they had appealed to Rome. The suit was still pending, and they alleged that the Prior had only resigned through conviction that judgment would be given against him. But they could not deny that Lancaster was patron of the house, and he won his case, and his nominee was ordered to be admitted by the Bishop.[114]
The new authority was not more effective than the foreign had been, and Bishop Norbury found at Tutbury general disorder, incontinency, addiction to hunting, and even a military spirit. It is to be feared that the Kings valued the control they had acquired over the houses with foreign connections mainly for its financial advantage. Henry IV gave his Queen Joan charges on the revenues of Tutbury and we have already seen that the claim to nominate to a corrody there was enforced as late as 1532.[115]
In 1535 the Prior was Arthur Meverell. He had only just been appointed. His predecessor had died in the January of the very year the Commissioners visited the Priory, and the Earl of Shrewsbury had immediately written to Cromwell begging the preferment for the Sub-Prior, “Dn. Arthur Meverell.” Even before the late Prior was dead, a recommendation of Meverell for the post soon to be vacant had been sent in, and an unknown hand has endorsed it: “He was my godfather, and I knew him a comely grave man.”[116] The Bishop wrote to Cromwell on May 7th: “I beg you will not be displeased in the matter of the Prior of Tutbury. I have your letters wherein you desired me not to meddle therein. But now your pleasure known the bond shall be substantially made and the penalty sent to you with all diligence”; and on May 28th: “I sent to the Prior of Tutbury to repair to you.”[117] Dn. Arthur Meverell was, apparently, to judge from his later history, one of the “divers abbottes that could be perswaded or were ... for the purpose placed ... [and who subsequently] made surrender of their houses and conveied them to the Kinge by order of lawe, and had competent pencions.”[118]
The summary of Tutbury is arranged in counties; firstly, the temporal income from Derbyshire, then that from Staffordshire; then comes the spiritual income: annual “pensions” from various counties grouped together (£25 11s. 4d.), and tithes arranged in counties. The outgoings are arranged under the headings of “pensions,” fixed rents, annual fees, and alms.