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]

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.

One of the earliest cases of this character, of which records still exist, dates from 1138. Apparently some unlicensed schools had been set up in some parts of London. The schoolmaster of St. Paul’s reported the matter to the Bishop of Winchester (who was acting as Bishop of London during a vacancy in the see). The Bishop consequently issued a writ, in which sentence of excommunication was passed against all those who should continue to keep school in the city of London without the permission of Henry, the schoolmaster.[287] Other cases are recorded in the Beverley Chapter Act Book,[288] one of which may be taken for illustrative purposes. It seems that in 1304 Thomas of Brompton was the recognised master of the school of grammar in connection with the collegiate church at Beverley. An attempt was made by an unauthorised person to set up a school.[289] The schoolmaster reported the offender to the chapter; the chapter determined that if the offence was continued, then the intruding schoolmaster would be, ipso facto, excommunicate and that the chapter clerk was to announce, every Sunday, the fact of such excommunication.

There is no real evidence that there was any ground of appeal against such a sentence of excommunication. Only one instance of an appeal having been made is on record. It seems that a dispute as to the right of keeping school arose at Winchester, and that the party dissatisfied with the verdict carried the case to Rome. It has not been found possible, so far, to trace the result of the appeal.[290]

One of the most important of the cases in which an alleged infringement of monopoly took place, is the “Gloucester School Case,” which has come to be regarded as the leading case on the subject. Briefly, the facts are: the prior of Llanthony, as patron of the schools at Gloucester, had appointed John Hamlyn to the mastership of the school. A priest named Thomas More, who had previously been “scolemaster atte Herford,” set up an unlicensed school at Gloucester. Hamlyn therefore took action against More but, instead of bringing the defendant before a spiritual court, as had previously been customary, he brought the action in the Court of Common Pleas, and the case was tried before the Lord Chief Justice and two other judges.

The considered decision of the court was, that it was not an offence against the Common Law of England to keep a school. If an offence had been committed, it was an offence against ecclesiastical law, and that consequently the remedy was to be found in the ecclesiastical courts.[291]

The significance of this case was that the monopoly of school keeping was partly broken down. Henceforth, anyone who did not fear ecclesiastical censure and excommunication might keep school, if he so desired. The practical effect of the decision was slight since, as we have seen,[292] the monopoly right of keeping school was granted to Eton College thirty years later.

A problem in connection with this question of monopoly arose in Lincoln in 1407-9. There were two recognised schools in Lincoln; the general grammar school attended by the children of the citizens, and to which the choristers formerly went for their instruction in Latin, and the school of the choristers. In course of time, the choristers’ school ceased to confine itself to the study of music and added Latin to its curriculum. For some reason or other, this school also attracted outside scholars. The Mayor and Corporation, as representatives of the citizens of Lincoln, objected;[293] ultimately the matter was settled by a compromise; the teachers of the choristers were to be allowed “to teach grammar to the choristers and to the commoners with them, also to the relations of the canons and vicars of the church or those living at their expense and charity or dwelling in their family,” provided that a nominal acknowledgement of the rights of the master of the City Grammar School was made each term.[294]

Another problem arose out of the competing claims of the master of song and of the master of grammar. The master of song apparently maintained that he was as much an official master as the master of grammar, and probably considered himself quite as competent as his colleague to give lessons in Latin. This problem seems to have been particularly acute at Warwick, and so the authorities of the collegiate church made careful enquiries as to the ancient customs on the matter, and ultimately found that the Latin master alone possessed the right of taking classes in Latin. As a concession, they allowed the master of song to take paying pupils in the “first letters” and the psalter.[295]

The grammar master was not alone in his desire to enforce the monopoly of school keeping in his subject; the master of music was equally tenacious of his prerogative. Thus in 1305, the song master of Lincoln Cathedral complained to the Cathedral Chapter that the Parish Clerks of the city were teaching music to the boys in their churches without his permission, and he charged them with holding “adulterine schools to the prejudice of the liberty of the mother church.” The chapter compelled the offenders to swear, “holding the most Holy Gospels, that they will not henceforward keep any adulterine schools in the churches, nor teach boys song or music without license from the schoolmaster.”[296]

In bringing this chapter to a close, we might quote from the statutes of St. Albans Grammar School, which were confirmed by the Abbot of St. Albans, in 1310, the section which deals with this question of monopoly. It is there stated that “the master for the time being shall annul, suppress, destroy, and eradicate all adulterine schools within our territory or jurisdiction, by inhibiting ... under pain of excommunication, any persons from resorting to or presuming to keep any schools without the will and assent of the master of our Grammar School within our aforesaid jurisdiction.”[297]

Though the privilege of school keeping was highly prized and stoutly defended, yet it has now passed into oblivion. This was effected, not by express decree either of law court or of state, but simply because the instruction in Latin, which was offered by these schools, ceased to be in demand. Two forces contributed to produce this result, the Reformation, and the increasing use of the vernacular. The Reformation brought to an end the number of appointments in connection with the Church for which a knowledge of Latin was a necessary qualification; and consequently the demand for grammar schools diminished. The increasing employment of the vernacular caused Latin to drop out of use as the language of commerce and the medium of written communication.