Education in England in the Middle Ages / Thesis Approved for the Degree of Doctor of Science in the University of London

by Albert William Parry

THE MONOPOLY OF SCHOOL KEEPING.

In studying the original sources from which we derive our knowledge of the educational development of this country, we find numerous references to alleged infringements of the monopoly of schoolkeeping claimed by the official schoolmaster. It is, therefore, necessary for us to consider the origin and nature of this monopoly.

The idea of monopoly in connection with trade and industry can be traced back to a very early date in the history of our country. To trace the origin and development of this idea generally, would not only be a valuable, but also an interesting contribution to our knowledge of our economic development. Here, we must content ourselves by limiting our investigation to the educational aspect. The earliest known instance of the claim to this monopoly dates from the eleventh century, and will subsequently be described. It is highly probable that the idea of the monopoly of keeping school in a prescribed area is of much more ancient date, as records, of necessity, only exist when some actual or threatened infringement of the monopoly necessitated recourse to some authority, who possessed the power of enforcing its observance.

A preliminary question naturally arises: if instruction was given gratuitously, why was there any need for the desire to possess this monopoly, why should not all comers teach school, if they so wished? A solution of this problem may be obtained from a consideration of that tendency for social exclusiveness which everywhere manifests itself. Even to-day, in this time of free education, parents, who can barely afford to do so, prefer to send their children to a fee-paying school for social reasons, even though the instruction given in the public free school may be given by better qualified and more efficient teachers than are to be found in the fee-paying schools. By analogy, we can reconstruct the situation in the eleventh and succeeding centuries. A knowledge of Latin was perceived, by this time, to possess value, and the boy who had received an education was recognised as being in a position to make his way in the world. We may, therefore, assume that some parents were prepared to make payments, in order that this education might be obtained. Where was this education to be gained? There were two possibilities. One was that the church schoolmaster might give supplementary attention to fee-paying pupils, or he might teach them separately, and outside the official time which the conditions of his appointment required. The other possibility was, that some other priest might come to the neighbourhood to set up school, and recompense himself by taking fee-paying pupils, leaving to the official schoolmaster only those pupils who were unable or unwilling to make payment for the instruction they received.

An elementary knowledge of human nature readily leads to the conclusion that the second alternative was not one to which the official schoolmaster would quietly consent. He would look upon the new-comer as an intruder, and would take such steps as were possible to prevent interference with what he claimed to be his monopoly of keeping school in his own district.

It is around this question of the monopoly of school keeping that the educational disputes of the Middle Ages mainly centre. The question is a difficult one because (1) this monopoly was not a matter of definite enactment either by Church or State; it simply evolved. (2) The authority by whose aid the monopoly could be enforced was not specified, and the absence of any definite regulating authority, and of any official pronouncements, led to many prospective schoolmasters setting up schools in promising localities. Sometimes this was accomplished without any interference, e.g. we find that at Rotherham a boy, who subsequently became Bishop of Lincoln, owed his early education to a schoolmaster who came to that neighbourhood to establish what would to-day be termed a “private school.”[270] This “private” schoolmaster was at times even welcomed. Thus at Beverley, which was afterwards notorious as the scene of some exciting disputes relative to the infringement of the monopoly of school keeping, we learn that “a certain scholar came there, wishing, as the place was full of clerks, to keep school there; and was received by the authorities of the church with unanimous approval.”[271] We must therefore conclude that the monopoly was not always rigorously enforced. It was only when a schoolmaster felt himself aggrieved and possessed energy, that action was taken in the matter.

The question of the authority by whom the question of an alleged infringement could be ultimately settled, was not definitely prescribed. Was the ultimate appeal to be to the chancellor of the diocese, to the patron of the school, to the bishop, to the archbishop, or to the pope? Were such cases to be dealt with, first of all, in an inferior court and then an appeal to be made to a higher court in the event of an unsatisfactory verdict being obtained? We shall be assisted in answering these questions if we consider the origin of the right of keeping school.

Originally, as we have seen, it was an unwritten custom of the Church that the parish priest should keep school. When there was the possibility that pecuniary advantage could arise through the keeping of a school, then it appears that this duty became a privilege and was formally expressed, in some cases, in a deed. In other words, in founding a church, a patron bestowed upon it not only certain lands and tithes, but also the right to keep school. Thus, at a date between 1076 and 1083, Robert Malet, who founded the conventual church of Eye, gave to the church “scholas ejusdem villae.”[272] Similarly, when Ilbert of Lacey founded the Church of St. Clement in his castle, C. 1080, he “dedicavit ipsam ecclesiam, cum scolis de Kirky et Pontefracti.”[273]

It is in this connection that we encounter one of the first disputes relating to the question of monopoly. The question was this, if a new church was established in a particular area, did the erection of this new church diminish the educational rights of the parent church as well as its spiritual rights? We may put the matter in another way by asking whether the patron of a church possessed the power of alienating the monopoly of school-keeping possessed by that church.

Roger, who became Earl of Warwick in 1123, apparently thought that the patron did possess this right. He bestowed the right of holding schools in Warwick upon the Collegiate Church of St. Mary’s, thus alienating the right from the Church of All Saints’, Warwick, which had previously possessed it. The authorities of All Saints’ desired to protest against this alienation and to preserve their rights. To what authority was this appeal to go? No information is available of the whole course of the struggle, but apparently the matter was ultimately referred to the king; for we find that a deed was issued by Henry I. to the bishops of Worcester and Gloucester, to Roger, Earl of Warwick, and to all the barons of Warwickshire, stating the king’s command that the Church of All Saints’, Warwick, was to retain the schools of Warwick as it had possessed them in the reign of Edward the Confessor.[274]