The original Summary in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ appears in its place[71] but is superseded by another which is written on a separate paper attached to the parchment.[72] The second is made authoritative by a note appended at the foot of the first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.)