From the inventories and surrenders, supplementing _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, we are able to form some idea as to the mode of living in the monasteries, and the standard of comfort which was reached. Doubtless the obligation to perform manual work had in most cases been forgotten, otherwise the large number of servants and labourers cannot well be accounted for. At Dieulacres[196] there were thirteen monks, six stewards and bailiffs (excluding “my lord of Derby,” whose office was a sinecure), a forester, and eleven others who had to be pensioned, besides thirty servants and “the launders and pore bedewomen.” The last-named probably did the Abbey washing. The “household” is a large one in comparison with the number of monks, even when we take into account the sheep-runs of the Abbey. Still more excessive is the staff of twenty-nine servants at Stafford for the seven canons; for the Priory of St. Thomas, though it had scattered possessions, employed in 1535 nine or ten stewards and bailiffs. Their baker was a person of sufficient importance to receive a pension of 10s. a year. The four nuns at Brewood had eight servants, although their house and income were alike small. They must have had an idle time, and when they were ejected with small pensions of £3 6s. 8d. to the Prioress, and half that amount to each of the three nuns, the change in their style of living must have been very marked and painful. Payments to lay officials, such as stewards, bailiffs, rent-collectors, and auditors, appear in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ as follows: Brewood Nunnery (4), _nil_; Burton-on-Trent, £28; Croxden (13), £7; Dieulacres (13), £5 6s. 8d.; Dudley, £2 6s. 8d.; Hulton, £6; Rocester (9), £2 13s. 4d.; Ronton, £4 6s. 8d.; St. Thomas’s (7), £11 13s. 4d.; Stone, £3 6s. 8d.; Trentham, £5; Tutbury (9), £18 13s. 4d.: Total, £94 6s. 8d. The figures in brackets show the number of religious, where these can be ascertained. At Dudley and Trentham these must have been very few, yet at the latter the expenditure on administration was £5. Tutbury also spent large sums on management. On the other hand, Rocester, with nine canons and two stewards, and a small expenditure on management, appears in a favourable light. The canons at Rocester were on good terms with their neighbours, and the house was almost unique among the smaller houses in Staffordshire in the matter of charity. The general impression of the canons of Rocester is that they were living quiet, simple lives, working hard themselves, and held in respect.