Chapter 5 of 9 · 6122 words · ~31 min read

CHAPTER V

THE FINANCES OF BURTON ABBEY

Many causes had combined to undermine the stability of the religious houses. Their pecuniary usefulness to Pope and King tended to make them the shuttlecock of politics. Their extensive worldly possessions made them objects of jealousy to their neighbours, while the secular spirit with which they became infected when they were drawn into the “full stream of the world” weakened their spiritual influence and made them at once more susceptible to attacks and less capable of effective opposition. Events and tendencies beyond their power to control, like the Black Death, the Hundred Years’ War, the Wars of the Roses, and the Revival of Learning, in turn exercised a disastrous influence upon them.

Seriously affected in wealth, numbers, and efficiency by the Black Death and its consequences; sharing in the lawlessness and demoralisation which accompanied the French War in its later stages, and the Wars of the Roses; lacking the supervision and guidance which active bishops had at any rate attempted, and not always ineffectually, to exercise; in the sixteenth century the religious houses were very different in character from what they had originally been. Even in material things they had changed. They had once been leaders in agricultural development, but their methods were now old-fashioned, ineffective, and out of date. Their wide domains were no longer the sources of wealth they formerly had been. New methods and new outlets for trade had left them behind. Unwise leases only gave temporary relief, and crippled instead of improving resources. All landowners were indeed feeling the effects of the economic changes, and a result was increased claims upon the monasteries by kings and patrons; and the religious houses were not in a condition to make effective opposition. They were not worse than their neighbours: their weakness lay in the fact that they were so little different from them. Up to the present there had been no definite charges of moral delinquency brought by authority against the monastic system. Good or bad, they were looked upon as part of the settled order of things by all except a few theorists and extremists.

There is no call, therefore, to consider as yet the question of their moral condition. In these earlier years of the “Reformation” the subject of interest to the government of the day was their financial value. With their finances only, therefore, we are as yet concerned.

With _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ to guide us as to the main outlines, it is possible to form a fairly correct estimate of the material condition of the Staffordshire houses at the time when the idea of the Dissolution of the Monasteries was being gradually evolved. We are able to draw up a balance sheet for each of the houses, and to obtain an insight into its revenues, possessions, and expenditure.

The largest and most important house in Staffordshire was the Benedictine Abbey of Burton-on-Trent. It had been of some renown in the past. Its Chronicle[70] incorporated many historical documents of first-rate importance. It had done much for the town. It had frequently given hospitality to kings, prelates, and lords: one of its rooms was actually still called “the King’s Chamber.” Recently its Abbot, Dr. William Boston, had made himself acceptable to Cromwell, had been summoned to Parliament, had been placed in various positions where he could make himself useful to the Government, and had been promoted to the headship of the great Abbey of Westminster. His successor at Burton had been elected directly through the influence of Cromwell’s representatives and he retained Cromwell’s favour accordingly. It might have been expected that when the Commissioners visited Burton-on-Trent they would be received with cordiality and would be able to count on every assistance.

It is surprising, therefore, to find that Burton Abbey is the only one in England where we know that an entirely false return was supplied. Indeed the Return from Burton Abbey which the Commissioners for Tenths sent in was so entirely erroneous that a second survey had to be made. There are two valuations of some other monasteries, but in such cases one is really an abbreviation of the other. The second survey of Burton is, however, a substitute for the first.

The original Summary in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ appears in its place[71] but is superseded by another which is written on a separate paper attached to the parchment.[72] The second is made authoritative by a note appended at the foot of the first survey under the following circumstances. The gross income having been stated to be £356 16s. 3½d. and the expenses £89 2s. O½d. (leaving a balance of £267 14s. 3d.), the tithe would, therefore, be under ordinary circumstances £26 15s. 5d. But the amount is stated to be £41 4s. 6d., with the explanatory note: “_Plus oneratur pro xiiii^{li.} ix^{s.} i^{d.} per billam domini cancellarii_.” On referring to the second survey we find it is signed by the Chancellor, Thomas Audley, and gives the gross income as £501 7s. 0½d. It allows the correctness of the expenditure as stated in the other survey, and when this is deducted from the revised total the net income becomes £412 5s., the tithe from which is that previously noted, namely £14 9s. 1d. more than was due according to the first survey.

The problem raised by the existence of the two surveys is interesting, and may be compared with a similar one which arises in the early history of the same Abbey. There is no mention in Domesday Book of the bulk of the territory of the Manor and Parish of Burton-on-Trent, some 6,000 acres, which the Abbey possessed and in the midst of which it stood. Although the land lay in two counties and should have been surveyed by two distinct sets of Domesday officials, no trace of any report of either has been found, and the final summary is silent. Whether the Abbot in the eleventh century procured the suppression by tampering with both sets of commissioners, or whether he evaded the survey of both by playing off one against the other, or whether he was specially exempted by the Crown, cannot be known.

In the case of Henry VIII’s survey there is much the same uncertainty. External history tells us nothing, and little can be gleaned from the summaries themselves. The following table is an attempt to exhibit a comparative analysis of the two surveys. The income, temporal and spiritual, is arranged according to its sources and character. It must be borne in mind that here we have to deal with the items as they are detailed and not with the official totals as those are given, sometimes wrongly, in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_. The totals shown in the table do not, therefore, always agree with the figures which appeared in the table on page 64. (See Notes following that table.)

This was not the first occasion on which Burton had pretended to be poorer than it actually was. The royal claim to nominate men, disbanded soldiers or others for whom it was desired to provide at other people’s expense, to corrodies at the religious houses, was at times a grave abuse. The Patent Rolls show vast numbers of such nominations. In the course of a few years we find, as regards Burton only,[73] two men sent there in 1316 and another sent in 1317; in 1318 John le Treour was sent on account of his good service to the King and to Queen Isabella in the place of one who had died; Treour lived till 1323, and on his death John le Nakerer was immediately substituted. The presence of such outsiders in what professed to be religious communities must have been exceedingly embarrassing to any who were trying to live in the spirit of the rules, and most prejudicial to spirituality and discipline. It was, however, difficult to oppose the royal commands. Burton tried to do so in 1310 and failed ignominiously.[74] Thomas de Bannebury, who had long served Edward II and his father, was sent to the Abbot and Convent to receive the necessaries of life in food and drink, clothing, etc., according to his estate. They replied to the royal missive with a profession of their willingness to acquiesce if they had the power to do so, but they pleaded that their house was the poorest and smallest of their Order in England, and was more heavily charged than any in proportion to its means. They, therefore, asserted their inability to receive the royal pensioner. For answer, they were told that there was trustworthy evidence that their assertions were false, and on their continued efforts to avoid compliance they were summarily ordered to admit Bannebury, and were told that their excuses were frivolous, untruthful, and unacceptable.

BURTON-ON-TRENT: INCOME (“TEMPORALITIES”) Part 1 of table ----------------------+--------------------------+---------------------+ | Demesne | Meadows | | 1 2 | 1 2 | ----------------------+-------------+------------+----------+----------+ _Staffordshire:_ | | | | | Shobnal Grange-- | | | | | Arable £1 13s. 4d.} | | | | | Pasture 3 0 0 } | 6 13 4 | =6 13 4= | | | Meadow 2 0 0 } | | | | | Bromley Hurst | 7 6 8 |}=11 13 4= | | | Bentley Park | |} | | | (meadow) | 4 0 0 |} | | | Seney Park | 6 0 0 | =8 0 0= | | | Burton-on-Trent | 24 0 0[76]| =24 0 0= | 3 0 0 | | Branstone | | | | | Hornington and | | | | | Whitmere | | | | | Stretton | | | | | Anslow | | | | | Abbots Bromley | | | | | Leigh | | | | | Field (Thomas | | | | | Bagot, Kt) | | | | | Pillatonhall | | | | | Darlastone | | | | | Okeover (Humph. | | | | | Okeover, Kt.) | | | | | Weston | | | | | _Divers pastures near | | | | | the Trent_ | | | | =4 10 0=| _Collingwood_ | | | | | _Near Whitmere_ | | | | | _Derbyshire:_ | | | | | Stapenhill } | 13 4 | =13 4= | | | Winshill } | | | | | | | | | | Derby | | | | | Cauldwell | | | | | Mickleover Manor | | | | | Littleover „ | | | | | Findern „ | | | | | Ticknall | | | | | Willington and Pothlac| | | | | Huncedon | | | | | Allestree (Warwicks) | | | | | Appleby (Leices.) | | | | | London | | | | | +-------------+------------+----------+----------+ 1st Total | 48 13 4 | =51 0 0= | 3 0 0 | =4 10 0=| £271 16s. 3½d. ================================================== [given in _V.E._ as £cclxxi xi. iii ob.] =2nd Total £414 14s. 4½d.= [=given in _V.E._ as £ccccii xv iiii ob.=]

[75] with 1 water-mill.

[76] with 2 water-mills.

Part 2 of table ----------------------+ ----------------------+ _Staffordshire:_ | Shobnal Grange-- | Arable £1 13s. 4d.} | Pasture 3 0 0 } | Meadow 2 0 0 } | Bromley Hurst Bentley Park | (meadow) | Seney Park | Burton-on-Trent Branstone Hornington and | Whitmere Stretton Anslow | Abbots Bromley | Leigh | Field (Thomas | Bagot, Kt) | Pillatonhall | Darlastone | Okeover (Humph. | Okeover, Kt.) | Weston | _Divers pastures near | the Trent_ | _Collingwood_ | _Near Whitmere_ | _Derbyshire:_ | Stapenhill } Winshill } | Derby Cauldwell Mickleover Manor | Littleover „ | Findern „ | Ticknall | Willington and Pothlac| Huncedon Allestree (Warwicks) | 10 10 0 Appleby (Leices.) London 1st Total £271 16s. 3½d. [given in _V.E._ =2nd Total £414 14s. 4½d.= [=given in _V.E._ ----------------------------+------------------------+ | Lands and tenements | Chief Rents | | 1 2 | 1 2 | ------------+---------------+-----------+------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 40 6 8[75]| =40 6 8=[75]| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 21 7 0 | =63 15 4=[76]| 13 0 0 | =13 0 0= | | 9 4 0 | =12 14 5= | | | | | | | | 11 13 0 | =15 5 8= | 3 0 | | | 13 2 3 | =19 3 9= | | | | | 13 4 | =13 5 4= | | =16 10 11= | 4 7 2½ | =7 7 2½=| | | 4 0 0 | =5 0 0= | | | | | | | 1 0 0 | | | | 16 0 | =16 0= | | | 2 11 0 | =2 11 0= | | | | | | | 1 6 8 | =1 6 8= | | | 10 0 | =10 0= | | | | | | | | | | =1 6 8= | | | | =8 13 4= | | | | | | | | 7 4 6 | =11 4 6= | 3 0 | | | 8 7 1 | =13 13 2= | | | | | | | | 3 6 8[76]| =3 6 8=[76]| | =1 14 0= | | 7 2 1 | =9 17 6= | | | | | 4 0 | | | | | | | | | | | | 10 0 | =10 0= | | | 2 1 8 | =1 16 4= | | 6 0 0 | =6 0 0= | | | | =17 12 6= | | | | 7 3 0 | =10 5 0= | 5 4 | | | 2 0 0 | =2 0 0= | | | +------------+---------------+-----------+------------+ |147 6 3 |=251 16 1= | 31 11 2½ | =47 16 6½= | ======================================================= as £cclxxi xi. iii ob.] as £ccccii xv iiii ob.=]

[75] with 1 water-mill.

[76] with 2 water-mills.

Part 3 of table ----------------------+---------------------+--------------------- | Court | Manor | 1 2 | ----------------------+----------+----------+---------+----------- _Staffordshire:_ | | | | Shobnal Grange-- | | | | Arable £1 13s. 4d.} | | | | Pasture 3 0 0 } | | | | Meadow 2 0 0 } | | | | Bromley Hurst | | | | Bentley Park | | | | (meadow) | | | | Seney Park | | | | Burton-on-Trent | 3 6 8 |=3 6 8= | | Branstone | | | | Hornington and | | | | Whitmere | | | | Stretton | | | | Anslow | | | | Abbots Bromley | | | | Leigh | | | | Field (Thomas | | | | Bagot, Kt) | | | | Pillatonhall | | | | Darlastone | | | | Okeover (Humph. | | | | Okeover, Kt.) | | | | Weston | | | | _Divers pastures near | | | | the Trent_ | | | | _Collingwood_ | | | | _Near Whitmere_ | | | | _Derbyshire:_ | | | | Stapenhill } | | | | Winshill } | | | | | | | | Derby | | | | Cauldwell | | | | Mickleover Manor | | | 16 2 2| =24 16 10= Littleover „ | | | 13 4 4| =17 15 11= Findern „ | | | 8 12 4| =13 12 4= Ticknall | | | | Willington and Pothlac| | | | Huncedon | | | | Allestree (Warwicks) | | | | Appleby (Leices.) | | | | London | | | | +----------+----------+---------+----------- 1st Total | 3 6 8 |=3 6 8= | 37 18 10| =56 5 1= £271 16s. 3½d. ============================================ [given in _V.E._ as £cclxxi xi. iii ob.] =2nd Total £414 14s. 4½d.= [=given in _V.E._ as £ccccii xv iiii ob.=]

[75] with 1 water-mill.

[76] with 2 water-mills.

BURTON-ON-TRENT: INCOME (“SPIRITUALITIES”) Part 1 of table ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Tithes | Oblations | | 1 2 | 1 2 | --------------------------------|--------+----------+--------+----------+ Burton-on-Trent |£23 0 0 |£=33 0 0= | | | St. Modwen’s Chapel at Andrasia | | | £2 0 0 | £=2 0 0= | Abbots Bromley | 13 6 8 | =13 6 8= | | | Ilam | | | | | Blithfield | | | | | Grindon | | | | | Leigh | | | | | Hampstall Ridware | | | | | Cauldon Chapel | | | | | Mickleover, Littleover and | | | | | Findern (Derbyshire) | | | | | Stapenhill „ | | | | | Allestree (Warw.) | | | | | |--------+----------+--------+----------+ 1st Total £85 5s. | 36 6 8 | =46 6 8= | 2 0 0 | =2 0 0= | =2nd „ £99 5s.= ======================================= =Given in _V.E._ as £lxxxxviii xi viii=

Part 2 of table ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Church and Glebe | Church | | 1 2 | 1 2 | --------------------------------|--------+----------+--------+----------+ Burton-on-Trent | | | | | St. Modwen’s Chapel at Andrasia | | | | | Abbots Bromley | | | | | Ilam | £8 0 0 |£=8 13 4= | | | Blithfield | | | | | Grindon | | | | | Leigh | | | | | Hampstall Ridware | | | | | Cauldon Chapel | | =2 6 8= | | | Mickleover, Littleover and | | | | | Findern (Derbyshire) | | | 8 13 4 | =8 13 4=| Stapenhill „ | | |10 0 0 |=10 0 0=| Allestree (Warw.) | | |15 0 0 |=16 0 0=| |--------+----------+--------+----------+ 1st Total £85 5s. | 8 0 0 |=11 0 0= |33 13 4 |=34 13 4=| =2nd „ £99 5s.= ======================================== =Given in _V.E._ as £lxxxxviii xi viii=

Part 3 of table ---------------------------------------------------- | Pensions | 1 2 --------------------------------|--------+---------- Burton-on-Trent | | St. Modwen’s Chapel at Andrasia | | Abbots Bromley | | Ilam | | Blithfield |£1 0 0 | £=1 0 0= Grindon | 13 4 | =13 4= Leigh | 3 6 8 | =3 6 8= Hampstall Ridware | 5 0 | =5 0= Cauldon Chapel | | Mickleover, Littleover and | | Findern (Derbyshire) | | Stapenhill „ | | Allestree (Warw.) | | |--------+---------- 1st Total £85 5s. | 5 5 0 | =5 5 0= =2nd „ £99 5s.= =================== =Given in _V.E._ as £lxxxxviii xi viii=

Whether the official opinion in this case was just we need not enquire. We must, however, examine with some care the attempt which, as it appears, was made to mislead the Commissioners for First Fruits and Tenths in the reign of Henry VIII.

It will be noticed that by far the largest individual additions which are made in the second survey come from rents in Burton and its suburbs. In the first survey no mention at all is made of the special endowments of the Prior (£2), Almoner (£8), Cook (£8 6s. 8d.), Custodian of St. Mary’s Chapel (£4), and Martyrologist (£14). The kitchen at Burton had long been well endowed. Abbot Nicholas (_ob._ 1197) was the first to put it on a business-like footing. Abbot Nicholas de Wallingford (1216–1222) and Abbot Richard de Insula (1222–1223) had added to its endowments. No mention is made of the Chantries of William Branstone (£4), or William Beyne (£8 13s. 4d.). The former had been Abbot in the fifteenth century and had died in 1474. The latter had been Abbot from 1502 to 1533 and had endowed the Grammar School. Considerable rents are omitted from “divers pastures near the Trent,” where fed the sheep which had once made the Abbey wool famous. In an old list of the English monasteries which supplied wool to the Florentine markets in 1315 the wool from Burton is described as _in Torcea_, probably the same as wool _de marisco_, which was usually classed by itself. _Torcea_ appears to mean a dyke or embankment, and the Burton sheep probably pastured in these low fields near the Trent which were secured from inundation by means of embankments.[77] Rents from Abbots Bromley (£16 10s. 11d.), one of the oldest of the Abbey’s estates, and Derby are also omitted. Even in the items which are given in both lists, the second shows a considerable increase in nearly every instance. The rents from Allestree are raised by £7 2s. 6d.; the valuation of the Manor of Mickleover is increased by £8 14s. 8d.; the chief rents from Anslow actually leap from 13s. 4d. to £13 5s. 4d. The increase in the valuations of the other manors is also considerable.

“Seney Park,” the valuation of which is increased from £6 to £8, was to the west of the town, near Shobnall Grange. The Abbey had a house there, surrounded by a moat, and used as a place of retirement for many generations. The monks used to go there in the fourteenth century to recover from the periodical “blood-letting.” Its name is thus explained by a seventeenth century writer: “The Abbot of Burton-upon-Trent ... having a vast rough hillie ground about a mile distant from the Abbey, called it Sinai, for the likeness it had to that rough wilderness of Sinai where in a mount God appeared unto Moses; which ground to this day retaineth the Name and is now called Sinai Park.”[78]

The only important items which are left unchanged are the valuations of the demesnes at Shobnall Grange and at Burton (with the Court Fees), and the lands on lease (_ad firma_) at Bromley Hurst and this may suggest a possible explanation of the problem we are considering.

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| Corrody |Officials || | Aids) | | || -----------------------+----------+----------+----------++ | £ 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 | | | 1 0 0 || 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 | Dean and |Archdeacon’s| | fees | Chapter | 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 TEMPORAL -----------------------+----------+----------+----------+---------- | Churches | and | Alms |Education | | Chantry | | -----------------------+----------+----------+----------+---------- | £ s. d. | £ s. d. | £ s. d. | £ s. d. Church of Burton | | | | Manor of Burton | | | | Town of Burton | | | | Mickleover, etc. | | | | Allestree | 1 0 0 | 2 0 | 3 4 | Anslow | | | | Bromley Hurst | | | | Stapenhill | 3 6 8 | | | Sallow, Chantry Chapel | | 5 0 0 | | Abbots Bromley | | | | Ilam | | | | Abbey of Burton | | | 23 0 11 | 12 0 0 Branstone, etc | | | | Withington and Pothlac | | | | | £4 6 8 | £5 2 0 |£23 4 3 |£12 0 0

Total temporal expenditure £33 8 8 „ spiritual „ £55 13 4½ --------- Total expenditure £89 2 0½ =========

In the disbursements there are many interesting items. A corrody, worth £3 6s. 8d., one of the very small number recorded in Staffordshire, is held by a royal nominee, John Seggewik. £2 is paid annually to a poor scholar, John Belfeld, appointed also by the King: it was a permanent arrangement. £10 is paid to Gloucester College, Oxford. This was the great Benedictine college, and it was suppressed with the larger monasteries. Its modern representative, Worcester College, knows nothing of the £10 from Burton Abbey. On the other hand, _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ recorded that Worcester Monastery still received £4 from the King’s College at Oxford _ratione suppressionis prioratus de Sandwall_.[85] The annual payment to Gloucester College had been instituted by John Sudbury, one of the most famous of the Abbots of Burton. He held office from 1400 to 1423. His life had not been an ideal one, by any means, and he was a typical specimen of his time. When Convocation in 1404–5 voted the King a large grant he was appointed one of the collectors, and the grant, being exceptionally large and being levied with exceptional strictness, was bitterly resented. Sudbury, finding himself opposed even by his own tenants of Stapenhill, on the Derbyshire side of the Trent, instigated his Staffordshire men to retaliate on them, when they crossed the river and came into Burton to trade, by robbery and violence. The Burton monks were very disorderly at this time, for just previous to this there had been a charge against them of robbing a woman of 100 shillings. They waylaid John Newton, Canon and Chaplain of their hostile neighbour, Sir Thomas de Gresley, as well as the parson of Rolleston and others. They stole fish and cows. They assaulted one of the King’s Escheators. They set at naught not only the Statute of Labourers by paying Thomas Shepherd and many others 4d. a day, “to the sum of 100 shillings,” but also morality, for when Abbot Sudbury, in 1407, was driven to obtain a royal pardon for his manifold offences, we find among them that “of having, on Wednesday, Christmas, 6 Henry IV, in his chamber at Burton, ravished Marjory, the wife of Nicholas Taverner.”[86] So powerful was Abbot Sudbury that he was able to defy his Bishop’s summons to answer for the many irregularities with which he was charged.

During the rule of Sudbury’s predecessor, the Abbey being in difficulties, an attempt had been made to obtain the good offices of “Monsieur John Bagot,” the Sheriff of Staffordshire, by an annual payment of thirty shillings. It is a typical example of “maintenance.” Such a policy was double-edged, and the powerful “friend” was often encouraged to attempt to extort a higher price for his services. This happened in the present instance. A petition was sent by Sudbury, to the Bishop of Winchester, the Chancellor, setting forth that: “The said John, not being content with the xxxs., in order to force a larger sum from the Abbot, had destroyed his park at Bromley and had taken 20 bucks and 12 does, to the great damage of the said Abbot and to the prejudice and contempt of the King.” Moreover, although John Bagot held in chief of the Abbot the vill of Field by homage, fealty, and escuage, and by the service of twenty shillings annually, he had refused to perform his homage; his power in the district was so great that remedy was difficult.[87] Altogether, the situation was one which illustrates very well the general weakening of public security at the time through the growing power of great men and the increasing decline of authority. Just as John de Sudbury set at naught the Bishop and oppressed his weaker neighbours, so John Bagot, the Sheriff, abused his position and office to enforce an annual bribe from the Abbey to abstain from robbery and violence, which he, nevertheless, continued.

But Sudbury was none the less a man of business and not without his good qualities. When the Rectory of Allestree was appropriated during his tenure of office he arranged, as _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ records, for a distribution there of 3s. 4d. annually at Michaelmas, and for £1 to be paid to the deacon who took the place of the absentee rector. He also provided for the maintenance of a lamp there at an annual cost of 2s. Other former Abbots who had endowed Poor Doles were Nicholas Abingdon (1187–1197), John Stafford (1260–1280), Thomas Field (1474–1494), and William Beyne (1502–1533), the amount to be distributed in each case being £14 7s. John Stafford arranged also for the payment of £5 yearly to the Chantry Chapel at Sallow. There are further doles, said to have been endowed by the founder of the monastery, as follows: £1 18s. on the anniversary of his death (Oct. 22nd) for his soul and the souls of King Etheldred and his royal successors and of Anselm and Archbishop Alfrike, the founder’s brothers; £1 18s. at Corpus Christi; £4 in twenty-four cloaks on the anniversary of his death; and 8d. given to the poor each day in the year in bread, ale and meat (reckoned at £12). The total spent in doles is £23 4s. 3d. _per annum_.

The officials (with fees) are as follows: George, Earl of Huntingdon, chief steward, £6 13s. 4d.; Hugh Barley, steward of Abbots Bromley, £1, and auditor, £5; Thomas Boylston, general receiver, £4; bailiffs Richard Morley (Findern and Stapenhill, 13s. 4d.), Ralf Manwaryng, gent. (Mickleover, £1), Nicholas Teyte (Littleover and Caldwell, £1 6s. 8d.), John Lambert (Allestree and Appleby, 13s. 4d.), John Smith (Branstone, etc., £2), Edward Edensore (Bromley Hurst, £2), Henry Meynell, gent. (Willington and Pothlac, 6s. 8d.), Walter Charnels (“bailiff of the town of Burton, who now receives the whole sum of the perquisites of the Court there by the King’s commandment” £3 6s. 8d.).

The remark about Walter Charnels reminds us that the King had a considerable interest in the affairs of Burton Abbey. Besides the bailiff of the town, he nominated a corrodian and a poor scholar, and he took fees (“Sheriffs’ Aids”) to the extent of £2 2s. a year.

If we are correct in our surmise that the statement of outgoings was not very strictly scrutinised in the case of Burton, we have, perhaps, an explanation of the large proportion allotted to alms there in contrast to the very small amount allowed elsewhere in the whole of the county. It may be that in other places the amount spent in alms was not allowed to be deducted, as it was at Burton.

No valuation subsequent to the Dissolution appears in _Monasticon_, so that we are deprived of the material which might have been afforded for checking the Chancellor’s (second) valuation. It may, however, be safely assumed to be fairly correct, and to give us a tolerably complete account of the revenues of the Abbey during the last years of its existence.