FOOTNOTES:
[1] The six cities appointed in the book of Numbers were only for those who “killeth any person unawares.” (xxxv.)
[2] Chapter XIX. 4.
[3] Joshua, XX. 4, 5.
“These were the cities appointed for all the children of Israel, and for the avenger that sojourneth among them, that whomsoever killeth any person unawares, might flee thither, and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood, until he stood before the congregation.” idem. 9.
[4] Chapter I., 50, 52.
[5] Joshua, XX., 4, 5.
[6] I. Kings, 1, 50, 51.
Nimrod, on the death of his eldest son, erected a golden statue of him in his palace and ordained that all criminals fleeing thither should be protected and this was a species of sanctuary. The Green Bag, vol. VIII., 1896, p. 422.
[7] Chambers Journal, vol. 44, Jan.-June, 1867, p. 170.
[8] The Green Bag, vol. 8, 1896, p. 423.
[9] Chambers Journal, vol. 64, p. 513.
[10] Plutarch, Dr. Pegge; Green Bag, vol. 8, 1896, p. 423.
[11] Chambers Journal, vol. 64, p. 513. Papal sanction was expressly given in the year 620. ante idem.
[12] Chambers Journal, Vol. 64, August, 1887, p. 512.
[13] Chambers Journal, Vol. 44, June, 1867, p. 170.
[14] Ante idem.
[15] I. Reeve’s History English Law, p. 198.
Reeves shows that at this early day the pax ecclesiae was more sacred, before the law, than the pax regis, ante idem.
[16] Reville, L’Abjuratio regni, Revue historique, vol. 50, p. 1; M. Reville contends that the law of abjuration is purely an English institution and was adopted by the Normans, from the early Anglo-Saxons. See Pl. Cr. pi. 48, 49, 89; Britton, i, 63; Leg. Edw. Conf. c, 5.
[17] II. Pollock and Maitland’s History English Law, p. 590.
[18] Ante idem.
Speaking of the practice known as adjuration of the realm, Pollock and Maitland, in their excellent history of English Law, say: “The coroner came and parleyed with the refugee, who had his choice between submitting to trial and abjuring the realm. If he chose the latter course, he hurried, dressed in pilgrim’s guise, to the port that was assigned to him, and left England, being bound by his oath, never to return. His lands escheated; his chattels were forfeited, and if he ever came back, his fate was that of an outlaw.” (Vol. II., p. 590.)
[19] I. Pollock and Maitland’s History English Law, pp. 565, 566; R. H. 1, 308; Maddox, Hist. Exch. i, 541, 568.
[20] Chamber’s Journal, Vol. 64, 1887, p. 513; Green Bag, vol. 8, p. 423.
[21] Ante idem. I. Reeve’s History English Law, p. 198.
[22] Mirror of Justice, c. 5.
[23] I. Reeve’s History English Law, pp. 198, 199, note, Finlason’s edition.
[24] This term is composed of the words “frith” and “stol,” meaning “the seat of peace.” It was a heavy stone chair, or seat and that at Beverly was devoid of decoration, but perfectly plain, in every particular. It has been broken and repaired with clamps of iron and we are informed that it formerly bore a Latin inscription, which stated that: “This stone chair is called Fridstool—that is, the Chair of Peace, to which what criminal soever flies to it hath full protection.” Chamber’s Journal, Vol. 64, 1887, p. 513.
Littell’s Living Age, of July-Sept., 1907, Vol. 254, p. 700, produces a transcript of the register at Beverley, when one John Spret was entered as a sanctuary criminal, as follows: “John Spret, gentleman. Memorandum. That John Spret, of Barton, upon Umber, in the counte of Lyncoln, com to Beverlay, the first day of October, the vii year of the reen of Keing Henry the VII., and asked the lybertes of Saint John of Beverlay, for the death of John Welton, husbondman of the same town, and knawlig hymself to be at the kylling of the same John with a degart, the 15’ day of August.” And thus, this tragedy, which resulted in the death of husbandman John Welton, at the point of a dagger, in the hand of Mr. John Spret, has caused both of these gentlemen to be known in history after a period of many centuries, and this sad circumstance of their lives is quoted long centuries later, to illustrate the manner of an obsolete custom.
[25] Chamber’s Journal, Vol. 64, p. 514.
[26] Violators of the first and second boundary were punished by a fine of eight pounds; the third space by double that sum; and so on, but if a person penetrated into the charmed circle of the altar, no fine could save him, but he was regarded as a “botelas” man. ante idem.
[27] Chamber’s Journal, 1867, Vol. 44, p. 171.
[28] Ante idem.
[29] Chamber’s Journal, Vol. 44, p. 171.
[30] Ante idem.
[31] III. Reeve’s History English Law, p. 331.
[32] 29 Ass. 34; II. Reeve’s History English Law, p. 81; Chamber’s Journal, Vol. 44, p. 171.
Reeve says, speaking of the sanctuary at Westminster: “The resort of felons to this place, being in the metropolis of the kingdom, must have been very great and productive of great disorders.” ante idem.
The sanctuaries to which special charters had been granted, were known during the period of Henry VII., as private sanctuaries, while those that had not received special charters were called general sanctuaries and in distinguishing the two, a historian of that period has said:
“If a man fled to such a sanctuary as Westminster Knoll, he might remain undisturbed for life; but if he chose to abjure within the forty days, the coroner was to appoint him a day to do it. The law of sanctuary is laid down in a reading of this period in the following manner: None shall take sanctuary but in periculo vitae, as for treason, felony, or the like and not for debt; for a grant or prescription to have sanctuary for debt was against law and void. But the reading lays down a strange quibble to evade this; for it admits, that if a man’s body was in execution, and he escaped, and came to a sanctuary, ordained as a refuge, and safeguard for a man’s life, he should have benefit thereof, because by long imprisonment his life might be in jeopardy. If a church was suspended for bloodshed, he who took it for sanctuary should still enjoy it for forty days and abjuration for felony, discharged all felonies done before the abjuration. A man could not abjure for petit larceny, however, but only for such felonies as induced the pain of death.” IV. Reeve’s History English Law, p. 255.
[33] 3’ Henry VII., 12; IV. Reeve’s History English Law, 253.
[34] Ante idem.
[35] Preface of Rev. James Raine’s to the Fifth Volume of the Surtees Society, gives the following description of the manner of claiming sanctuary at Beverley and Durham:
“Persons who took refuge fled to the north door and knocked for admission.... As soon as anyone was so admitted the galilee bell was immediately tolled, to give notice that some one had taken sanctuary. The offender was required, before the shrine of the patron saint, and certain credible witnesses, to tell the nature of his offense, and to toll a bell, in token of his demanding the privilege of sanctuary.... Everyone who had the privilege of sanctuary was provided with a black gown and a yellow cross, called St. Cuthbert’s Cross, upon the left shoulder.... If one’s life was saved the third time, by the privilege of sanctuary, he became permanently a servant of the church.” Chamber’s Journal, Vol. 64, p. 514.
[36] This is the oath administered by the Archbishop of York, at Beverley, as same is preserved in the register, according to the Harleian Manuscript: “Ye shal be trew and feythful to my Lord Archbishop of York, lord of this towne; to the Provost of the same; to the Chanons of this chirch, and all other ministers thereof. Also, ye shal here gude hert to the Baillie and Governors of this towne, to al burges and comyners of the same. Also, ye shal bere no poynted wapen, dagger, knyfe, nor no other wapen agenst the kyng’s pece. And ye shal be redy at all your power if there be any debate or stryf, or oder sotham case of fyre within the towne, to help to surcess it.... So help you God, and this holy Evangelistes.” Chamber’s Journal, Vol. 64, p. 514.
[37] As reproduced, in Chamber’s Journal (Vol. 64, p. 514), this oath is as follows: “This hear thou, Sir Coroner, that I M of H. am a robber of sheep or of any other beast, or a murderer of one or mo, and a felon of our lord, the king of England; and because I have done many such evils or robberies, in his land, I abjure the land of our lord the king of England and I shall haste me toward the port of such a place which thou hast given me; and that I shall not go out of the highway; and if I do, I will that I be taken as a robber and a felon, of our lord the king; and that at such a place I will diligently seek for passage and that I will not tarry there but one flood and ebb, if I can have passage; and unless I can have it at such a place, I will go every day into the sea up to my knees, assaying to pass over; and unless I can do this within forty days, I will put myself again into the church as a robber and a felon of our lord the king; so God help me and his holy judgment.”
[38] Chamber’s Journal, Vol. 64, p. 515.
[39] The Green Bag, Vol. 8, p. 425. He was buried as a martyr, in the south transept of this abbey and was followed by Chaucer, a few years later, who was buried at his feet. ante idem.
[40] Littell’s Living Age, Vol. 254, July-Sept., 1907, 701.
[41] Richard III., Act V., Scene III.
[42] Chamber’s Journal, Vol. 44, p. 171.
The debate at the Council Board, over the right to take refugees from the sanctuary, occasioned by Queen Elizabeth’s refuge to Westminster, is not without interest, in showing the views then obtaining on this custom. It was contended that no right of sanctuary existed, since no crime had been committed, as the right was only extended to criminals, in fear of their lives; that the little son had no right to sanctuary at all and that it was a flagrant abuse of the privilege for the Queen to claim it. Those who advocated roughly taking them away, were overcome by the mild persuasion urged by the Archbishop of York, who counseled that the child be obtained without force, if possible. See, Chamber’s Journal, Vol. 44, p. 171, Speed; Sir Thomas More.
[43] Year Book, I. Henry VII., fol. 24; IV. Reeve’s History English Law, p. 253.
[44] IV. Reeve’s History English Law, p. 254, Finlason’s note.
This is one of the many instances of the struggle going on for centuries between the civil authority, in its attempt to narrow the right of sanctuary and the church, to enlarge or preserve it.
[45] 21 Henry VII., Keilway, 70; IV. Reeve’s History English Law, Finlason’s note, p. 254.
[46] Chamber’s Journal, Vol. 44, p. 170, 171; idem., Vol. 64, 515.
Imprisonment for debt was abolished in Scotland, in 1880, and while the privilege still exists in form, at the places noted, in fact it has ceased to be a necessary legal exemption, since the repeal of this law.
[47] Chamber’s Journal, Vol. 64, p. 515.
[48] This bull was confirmed by Alexander VI., and Julius II., in 1493, and 1504. ante idem.
[49] 21 Henry VIII., c. 8.
[50] 64 Chamber’s Journal, p. 515.
[51] 26 Henry VIII.
[52] 21 James I., c. 28.
[53] 8 & 9 William IV., c. 26.
[54] Richard III., Act III., Scene I. For discussion of this and other references in Shakespeare, to the Law of Sanctuary, see White’s “Law in Shakespeare,” Sec. 324, p. 354.
[55] Act IV., Scene I.
[56] 3’ Henry VI., Act IV., Scene IV.
[57] Act I., Scene X.