On the other hand, the debts owing from the monastic estates were slow in finding payment. Dieulacres owed Elizabeth Alenn £22 at its dissolution, and in 1541 and 1542 instalments were still being paid. Such a mode of payment was disastrously slow and unsatisfactory. Henry Hargreaves, of Luddington, to whom Dieulacres owed £29 0s. 4d., and who came first on the list of creditors drawn up by Legh and Cavendish, apparently died without receiving his money, and at the end of 1541 Laurence Hargreaves was glad to compound the old debt for the sum of £20. In the same month Peter Bonye accepted £14 6s. 8d. in discharge of the £20 which was still owing to him from Tutbury Priory. We can well understand that every obstacle would be put in the way of the proving of claims. Richard Corveysor had a patent for £1 6s. 8d. a year granted to him by the Abbot of Dieulacres before the Dissolution, but he did not manage to get it allowed till 1542.[219] Indeed a keen eye to business was possessed by all the officials concerned, and every care was exercised to make as much as possible out of the monastic property. Just as old debts were often compounded by the acceptance of smaller sums, no doubt in despair caused by long delay, so payments for work done on the estates were often made at less than their proper amount. John Pratye had a lease for two years of Heath Mill (apparently formerly the property of Trentham Priory) and, in 1538, he sent in an account for repairs done, showing payments to various workmen, who are named, amounting to £16 7s. 8d. The bailiff was Robert Whyttworth, and although he passed the account and signed it as correct, John Pratye is found offering to take £10 down in discharge of it. The document affords an interesting illustration of the way the monastic estates were managed when they passed into the hands of the Crown.[220] There being such difficulty in obtaining the payment of money legally due within anything like reasonable time, it is not surprising to find that speculators arose and did a brisk business. The abuse became so marked that in Edward VI’s reign Parliament had to pass an Act (2–3 Edward VI, Cap. VII) “against the craftie and deceitful buying of Pensions from the late Monasteries,” but without much success in providing a remedy.