The King against The Bishop of Litchfield
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 87 E.R. 1200
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS, EXCHEQUER.
1200 EASTER TERM, 7 GEO. 2. IN B. B. 7 MOD. 217. [217] case 241. the king against the bishop of litchfield. The bishop may take a reasonable time to enquire the character of a person elected usher of a free grammar-school before he license him.-S. C. 2 Stra. 1023. S. C. 2 Barn. 365, 428. S. C. And. 367. S. C. 2 Kely. 287. A mandamus was granted to the Bishop of Litchfield to license one Rushworth, who had been elected by the inhabitants of the City of Coventry usher of a free grammar-school there, founded in the reign of Henry the Eighth by Mr. John Hales. To this mandamus the bishop returned, that by the antient canon law the power of licensing school-masters belonged to the Ordinary. Then the canons of 1603 are set out, the seventy-seventh of which requires such licence to be had ; and that Rushworth is a person in holy orders; that a great many persons who are electors were dissatisfied with his election ; that applications had been made to the bishop, by way of petition and affidavits, to suspend the granting him a licence until the next visitation, when they would make it appear that he was a person of a very profligate and scandalous life, and very unfit for the education of children; that at the visitation a caveat was regularly entered against granting such licence ; that Rushworth appeared thereon, and the articles of complaint were exhibited against him, which in the return the bishop set out in hcec verba. Then the bishop says, that he has not refused to grant a licence, but has only suspended the granting of it until he has received satisfaction whether he is a person proper to be licensed or not. Birch, Serjeant, against the return. The allegation, that by the canon law the Ordinary has a power to compel school-masters to take out a licence, as a qualification to teach school, must be proved on the other side. It does not appear what the nature of the affidavits is, nor that they were sworn before a person properly authorized to administer an oath, as is necessary (a). The strictest certainty is required in returns (A). It does not appear that Rushworth was summoned to answer the charge before the licence was refused, which is necessary in all cases. In the case of The King v. Dr. Bentley (e), ifc was held that there could be no suspension or degradation without a previous summons. The articles...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re The Chelmsford Grammar School
...of the Ordinary to examine into the necessary qualifications [557] of the person who requires the license: Bex v. The Bishop of Lichfield (7 Mod. 217; S. C. 2 Strange, 1022; and Com. Rep. 448), and the same rule was held in 1795 in Bex v. The Archbishop of York (6 T. R. 490), where Lord Ken......
-
The Case of the Farmers of Hampstead water
...to enquire whether he is properly qualified, in every respect, to be entrusted with the education of youth. Bex v. Bishop of Litchfield, 7 Mod. 217. S. C. 2 Stra. 1023 ; and as the teaching at such a school without a licence is a temporal offence, the Spiritual Court has no jurisdiction, Jo......