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.