The Act expressly exempted all monasteries whose annual value exceeded £200 according to _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, and thus Burton-on-Trent and Dieulacres escaped. It also exempted “such cells of Religious Houses, appertaining or belonging to their Monasteries or Priories, in which cells the Priors or other chief governors thereof be under the obedience of the Abbots or Priors to whom such Cells belong, as the Monks or Canons of the Convents of their Monasteries or Priories, and cannot sue or be sued, by the Laws of this Realm, in or by their own proper Names, for the Possessions or other Things appertaining to such Cells whereof they be Priors or Governors, but must sue and be sued in and by the Names of the Abbots or Priors to whom they be Obediencers, and to whom such Cells belong; and also be Priors or Governors dative, and removable from Time to Time, and Accountants of the Profits of such Cells, at the only Pleasure and Will of the Abbots or Priors to whom such Cells belong” (Art. 7). Dudley Priory accordingly remained till its superior house at Wenlock fell in 1540. The suppression of Calwich, already completed, was legalised by a clause which gave to the King any religious house “that otherwise hath been suppressed or dissolved.” To deal with the treasure which would accrue to the Crown, a special “Court of Augmentations” was created. It consisted of a chancellor, treasurer, attorney and solicitor, ten auditors, 17 receivers, etc., and its business was to take the surrenders and dispose of the property and movables. The chancellor was Sir Richard Riche, the Solicitor-General.[129] The treasurer was Sir Thomas Pope, better known as the founder of Trinity College, Oxford.[130] Of the auditors, the one most concerned with Staffordshire was William Cavendish,[131] brother of Wolsey’s biographer. The receiver who did most work in our neighbourhood was John Scudamore. No sooner was the Act passed than a most unseemly scramble for the spoils began. Petitions flowed in to Cromwell and other people of influence, begging, often in the most abject way, for favours. The rights of Patrons and Founders were in theory respected by the Act (Art. viii), but obviously little could be done for such persons when the monasteries disappeared. Obviously all religious and spiritual privileges and benefits vanished, and rights of nomination were valueless when there was no house to which to nominate. The clause was an elaborate pretence. How little the moral rights of founders were regarded is shown in the case of Ronton.