This decision is a most important one. It is a recognition by the state of the monopoly possessed by a particular church, and, in addition, it establishes the principle that the enforcement of this monopoly was a matter of temporal and not of spiritual jurisdiction.
Whether as the result of this decision or not we have now no means of determining, but the fact remains that many churches seemed to have been in doubt as to whether they possessed, or did not possess, this right of monopoly of school keeping. To resolve this doubt, appeal seems to have been made to the king, and a number of documents still exist which show the decision that was arrived at. Thus Henry I. confirmed to St. Oswald’s, Gloucester, the monopoly of school-keeping in that city,[275] to the priory of Huntingdon the monopoly of Huntingdonshire,[276] to the priory of Dunstable the monopoly of schools in that town.[277] Even as late as 1446, there was a grant of the monopoly of school-keeping to Eton College.[278]
The principle which seems to be established in these cases is that, when a dispute arose as to the monopoly right of keeping school in a particular area (apart from merely keeping an unlicensed school) the Crown alone possessed the power of deciding the dispute, and that when it was desired to establish an official school in any area, in addition to the existing schools, it was necessary to obtain the consent of the Crown.
This practice continued for several centuries. Thus in 1446, on the petition of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, Henry VI. ordained that there should be five schools in London, viz. in connection with the Churches of St. Paul, St. Martin, St. Mary-le-Bow, St. Dunstan, and St. Anthony, respectively.[279]
In the following year, another petition was sent to the king asking for four additional grammar schools in London, which were to be established in connection with the churches of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, St. Peter’s, Cornhill, All Hallows, and with the Hospital of St. Thomas. The reasons why the establishment of these schools is asked for are interesting, “forasmuche as to the Citee of London is the commune concours of this lond, wherein is gret multitude of younge peple, not only borne and brought forthe in the same Citee, but also of many other parties of this lond, som for lake of Scole maistres in their oune Contree for to be enfourmed of gramer there, and som for the grete almesse of Lordes, Merchaunts and other, the which is in London more plenteously doon, than in many other places of this Reaume, to such pouere Creatures as never shuld have be brought to so greet vertu and connyng as thei have, ne hadde hit ben bi the means of the almes aforesaid.”[280] They therefore ask that, in connection with the churches we have enumerated, they should be allowed “to create, establishe and sette a persone sufficiently lerned in gramer to hold and exercise a scole in the same science of gramer, and it there to teche to all that will lerne.”[281] The king assented to this petition “so that it be doone by thadvyse of the Ordinarie, otherelles of the Archebishope of Canterbury for the tyme beyng.”
The same procedure was even adopted in the seventeenth century. Owing to a dispute having arisen between the Master of the Grammar School at Exeter and the City Authorities, the latter appealed to the bishop, that he might license an additional master of grammar in the city, as had previously been done. The bishop did not consider that the special circumstances warranted him in taking the step desired by the civic authorities. As they failed to obtain their request, they appealed to the Crown in Council for permission to establish and maintain an additional school in the city, a request which was finally granted in 1631.[282]
A consideration of these cases enables us to understand why it was not possible, until comparatively recent times, to establish schools except by the consent of the Crown. Thus, in the reigns of the Tudor and Stuart sovereigns, a number of schools were established, but only by royal authority. When we come to consider the case of the Chantry Schools, we shall find that a number of schools were founded, but even in these cases the consent of the civil and of the ecclesiastical authorities was obtained. A licence to establish the school would be necessary, as well as a licence in mortmain.
The confirmation of the monopoly right of keeping school to a particular church practically meant that the patronage of the mastership of the school was vested in the authorities of that church. This patronage could be transferred, but the proceedings in such a case were of a civil, and not of an ecclesiastical character. This is similar to the procedure involved in the transfer of the right of patronage of an ecclesiastical benefice to-day. The procedure is purely civil and entirely outside the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical authorities. If there is any dispute as to the rightful power of patronage, the dispute must be settled in the civil courts. One of the earliest recorded cases of the transfer of the patronage of a school is that of Gloucester School. We have seen that Henry I. confirmed to St. Oswald’s Church, Gloucester, the right of keeping school in that city[283]; in 1137 Henry II. confirmed the transference of the patronage of the mastership of the school from St. Oswald’s Church to the Canons of Llanthony Abbey; and this transference was again confirmed by King John in 1199.[284] The fact that the settlement of disputed right of patronage of schools was a matter for the secular courts, is clearly brought out by a prohibition issued by the Courts in 1343.[285] This document runs: “The King to the Registrar and commissaries of the Court of Canterbury greeting—whereas the pleas relating to the patronage of grammar schools on our kingdom of England belong especially to our Crown and dignity and (whereas) the Abbot and Convent of Beaulieu are bringing before you in the Court Christian, as we have been informed by many, William Pipard, Clerk, relative to the patronage of the grammar schools of Ferendon—we forbid you to entertain that plea in the ecclesiastical court, such pleas belonging especially to us and to no other in this kingdom.”[286]
We have quoted this document in full, because Mr. de Montmorency instances it to support his contention that there existed a collision between Church and State in matters relating to education. He also maintains that this same document shows that the state “controlled the administration of educational foundations.” Mr. de Montmorency is in error here. When a vacancy arises in the incumbency of any parish to-day, of which the patronage is not in the hands of the bishop himself, it is possible that a dispute might arise as to the right of presentation. In such a case, the bishop would naturally refer the matter to his legal advisers. It would always be open for any interested party to stay such proceedings and to let the matter in dispute be determined by the High Court. It could hardly be seriously maintained that such action illustrates a collision between church and state in this country.
After a patron had appointed a master to a particular school, that master possessed the monopoly of keeping school in the prescribed area as long as he held the mastership of the school. No other school was allowed to be kept except with the consent of the master of the school. If any individual attempted to establish a school without such consent, then it was open to the schoolmaster to take the necessary steps to end this infringement of his monopoly.