A year later it discussed again the sale of the seven properties in Chiddingly which the parish itself owned, one freehold and the other copyhold, and decided that the proceeds from their sale should be used to repay the outstanding mortgage of £100 to the estate of the late Richard Knight of Laughton, with the balance going to Hailsham as part (all?) of Chiddingly’s contribution to the building of the new Union workhouse. Some sort of acrimonious argument between the Union and Chiddingly seems to have taken place. It was probably paralleled in most other parishes.

Meanwhile, what had happened to Mr. Gladman and the £50? Had he died, rejected the offer or absconded with the money? The Vestry Minutes make no further reference to him; but on May 9^th appear the details of a contract with James Holden of East Dean “to survey and value the parish at 6d. per acre”. Hodson’s fee would amount in toto to about £100, double what had been offered to Mr. Gladman. Why was the Vestry being so lavish? It then appears that half this sum was to be paid from the Poor Rate – which meant, presumably, that the Hailsham Board of Guardians would foot the bill – and half under the Tithe Commutation Act – presumably by deduction of tithes payable. These are conjectures but it does seem that the Chiddingly farmers may, after all, have carried through their revaluation without cost to themselves.

Revaluation also required an accurate, up-to-date map of the parish. To provide this the Vestry contracted with Richard Lower – with finance from the same sources – to “measure and map the parish at 10d. per acre”, which meant a fee of approximately £170 for Richard for which he was to supply two copies of the map. Any further copies of the map that might be required would be paid for at an additional 1½d. per acre per map. The Poor Rate declared for that year was still 2s. in the £ and the Highway Rate 10d. in the £.

Richard Lower’s map of Chiddingly was ready by February 1840 and on the 27^th of that month a meeting of owners and occupiers assembled to test its accuracy on the ground. On April 16^th, the Vestry agreed to adopt the map if it were approved by at least three quarters of those concerned and, since this approval seems to have been received, on May 5^th, Richard’s map was accepted as the ground base for all Tithe and Rating matters. He was further commissioned to make a reference book giving the aggregate quantities of each separate cultivation and to walk the bounds with the officers to ensure that neither his map nor his book in any way overlapped into any other parish. For this he was to receive 7d. per acre (approximately £117). Whoever may have lost on the revaluation – the Hailsham Board of Guardians seems the most likely suggestion – Richard Lower clearly benefitted considerably from it.