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]