Moreover, anybody who takes refuge at a síyid is for the moment safe. The right of sanctuary is regarded as very sacred in Morocco, especially in those parts of the country where the Sultan’s government has no power. To violate it is an outrage which the saint is sure to punish. I saw a madman whose insanity was attributed to the fact that he once had forcibly removed a fugitive from a saint’s tomb; and of a late Grand-Vizier it is said that he was killed by two powerful saints of Dukkâla, on whose refugees he had laid violent hands. Even the descendants of the saint or his manager (mḳáddem) can only by persuasion and by promising to mediate between the suppliant and his pursuer induce the former to leave the place.142 As is well known, this is not a custom restricted to Morocco. Among many peoples, at different stages of civilisation, sacred places give shelter to refugees.143

Among the Central Australian Arunta there is in each local totem centre a spot called ertnatulunga, in the immediate neighbourhood of which everything is sacred and must on no account be hurt. The plants growing there are never interfered with in any way; animals which come there are safe from the spear of the hunter; and a man who was being pursued by others would not be touched so long as he remained at this spot.144 In Upolu, one of the Samoan Islands, a certain god, Vave, had his residence in an old tree, which served as an asylum for murderers and other great offenders; if that tree was reached by the criminal he was safe, and the avenger could pursue no farther, but had to wait for investigation and trial.145 In the island of Hawaii there were two puhonuas, or cities of refuge, which afforded an inviolable sanctuary even to the vilest criminal who entered their precincts, and during war offered safe retreat to all the non-combatants of the neighbouring districts who flocked into them, as well as to the vanquished. As soon as the fugitive had entered, he repaired to the presence of the idol and made a short ejaculatory address, expressive of his obligations to him in reaching the place with security. The priests and their adherents would immediately put to death anyone who should have the temerity to follow or molest those who were once within the pale of the pahu tabu, and, as they put it, under the shade or protection of the spirit of Keave, the tutelary deity of the place. After a short period, probably not more than two or three days, the refugee was permitted to return unmolested to his home, the divine protection being supposed still to abide with him.146 In Tahiti the morais, or holy places, likewise gave shelter to criminals of every kind.147 At Maiva, in the South-Eastern part of New Guinea, “should a man be pursued by an enemy and take refuge in the dubu [or temple], he is perfectly safe inside. Any one smiting another inside the dubu would have his arms and legs shrivelled up, and he could do nothing but wish to die.”148

In many North American tribes certain sacred places or whole villages served as asylums, in which those who were pursued by the tribe or even an enemy were safe as soon as they had obtained admission.149 Among the Acagchemem Indians, in the valley and neighbourhood of San Juan Capistrano in California, a criminal who had fled to a vanquech, or place of worship, was secure not only as long as he remained there, but also after he had left the sanctuary. It was not even lawful to mention his crime, but all that the avenger could do to him was to point at him and deride him, saying, “Lo, a coward, who has been forced to flee to Chinigchinich!” This flight, however, turned the punishment from the head of the criminal upon that of some of his relatives.150

The South-Central African Barotse have a city of refuge. “Anyone incurring the king’s wrath, or committing a crime, may find safety by fleeing to this town. The man in charge of it is expected to plead for him before the chief, and he can then return to his house in peace.”151 Among the same people the tombs of chiefs are sanctuaries or places of refuge,152 and this is also the case among the Kafirs.153 So, too, in the monarchical states of the Gallas homicides enjoy a legal right of asylum if they have succeeded in taking refuge in a hut near the burial-place of the king.154 Among the Ovambo in South-Western Africa the village of a great chief is abandoned at his death, except by the members of a certain family, who remain there to prevent it from falling into utter decay. Condemned criminals who contrive to escape to one of these deserted villages are safe, at least for a time; for not even the chief himself may pursue a fugitive into the sacred place.155 In Congo Français there are several sanctuaries:—“The great one in the Calabar district is at Omon. Thither mothers of twins, widows, thieves, and slaves fly, and if they reach it are safe.”156 In Ashantee a slave who flies to a temple and dashes himself against the fetish cannot easily be brought back to his master.157 Among the Negroes of Accra criminals used to “seat themselves upon the fetish,” that is, place themselves under its protection; but murderers who sought refuge with the fetish were always liable to be delivered up to their pursuers.158 A traveller in the seventeenth century tells us that in Fetu, on the Gold Coast, a criminal who deserved death was pardoned by taking refuge in the hut of the high-priest.159 Among the Krumen of the Grain Coast the house of the high-priest (bodio) “is a sanctum to which culprits may betake themselves without the danger of being removed by anyone except by the bodio himself.”160 In Usambara a murderer cannot be arrested at any of the four places where the great wizards of the country reside.161

In other Muhammedan countries besides Morocco the tombs of saints, as also the mosques, are or have been places of refuge.162 In Persia the great number of such asylums proved so injurious to public safety, that about the middle of the nineteenth century only three mosques were left which were recognised by the government as affording protection to criminals of every description.163 Among the Hebrews the right of asylum originally belonged to all altars,164 but on the abolition of the local altars it was limited to certain cities of refuge.165 According to the Old Testament manslayers could find shelter there only in the case of involuntary homicide; but this was undoubtedly a narrowing of the ancient custom. Many heathen sanctuaries of the Phœnicians and Syrians retained even in Roman times what seems to have been an unlimited right of asylum;166 and at certain Arabian shrines the god likewise gave shelter to all fugitives without distinction, and even stray or stolen cattle that reached the holy ground could not be reclaimed by their owners.167

On the Coast of Malabar a certain temple situated to the south-east of Calicut affords protection to thieves and adulterous women belonging to the Brahmin caste, but this privilege is reckoned among the sixty-four anatcharams, or “abuses,” which were introduced by Brahmanism.168 Among the Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush there are several “cities of refuge,” the largest being the village of Mergrom, which is almost entirely peopled by chiles, or descendants of persons who have slain some fellow tribesman.169 In the Caucasus holy groves offer refuge to criminals, as also to animals, which cannot be shot there.170

In Greece many sanctuaries possessed the right of asylum down to the end of paganism, and any violation of this right was supposed to be severely punished by the deity.171 According to an old tradition, Romulus established a sanctuary, dedicated to some unknown god or spirit, on the slope of the Capitoline Hill, proclaiming that all who resorted to it, whether bond or free, should be safe.172 This tradition, and also some other statements made by Latin writers,173 seem to indicate that from ancient times certain sacred places in Rome gave shelter to refugees; but it was only in a comparatively late period of Roman history that the right of sanctuary, under Greek influence, became a recognised institution of some importance.174 This right was expressly conferred upon the temple which in the year 42 B.C. was built in honour of Cæsar;175 and other imperial temples, as also the statues of emperors, laid claim to the same privilege.176 When Christianity became the religion of the State a similar claim was made by the churches; but a legal right of asylum was only granted to them by Honorius in the West and Theodosius in the East.177 Subsequently it was restricted by Justinian, who decreed that all manslayers, adulterers, and kidnappers of women who fled to a church should be taken out of it.178

The right of sanctuary existed among the pagan Slavs, or some of them,179 and probably also among the ancient Teutons.180 After their conversion to Christianity the privilege of asylum within the church was recognised in most of their codes. In the Middle Ages and later, persons who fled to a church or to certain boundaries surrounding it were, for a time at least, safe from all persecution, it being considered treason against God, an offence beyond compensation, to force even the most flagrant criminal from His altar. The ordinary of the sacred place, or his official, was the only one who could try to induce him to leave it, but if he failed, the utmost that could be done was to deny the refugee victuals so that he might go forth voluntarily.181 In the ‘Lex Baiuwariorum’ it is asserted in the strongest terms that there is no crime which may not be pardoned from the fear of God and reverence for the saints.182 But the right of sanctuary was gradually subjected to various restrictions both by secular legislation and by the Church.183 Innocentius III. enjoined that refuge should not be given to a highway robber or to anybody who devastated cultivated fields at night;184 and according to Beaumanoir’s ‘Coutumes du Beauvoisis,’ dating from the thirteenth century, it was also denied to persons guilty of sacrilege or arson.185 The Parliament of Scotland enacted that whoever took the protection of the Church for homicide should be required to come out and undergo an assize, that it might be found whether it was committed of “forethought felony” or in “chaudemelle”; and only in the latter case was he to be restored to the sanctuary, the sheriff being directed to give him security to that effect before requiring him to leave it.186 In England, in the reign of Henry VIII., there were certain places which were allowed to be “places of tuition and privilege,” in addition to churches and their precincts. They were in fact cities of permanent refuge for persons who should, according to ancient usage, have abjured the realm, after they had fled in the ordinary way to a church. There was a governor in each of these privileged places, charged with the duty of mustering every day his men, who were not to exceed twenty in each town and who had to wear a badge whenever they appeared out of doors. But when these regulations were made, the protection of sanctuary was taken away from persons guilty of murder, rape, burglary, highway robbery, or arson. The law of sanctuary was then left unchanged till the reign of James I., when, in theory, the privilege in question was altogether denied to criminals.187 Yet as a matter of fact, asylums continued to exist in England so late as the reign of George I., when that of St. Peter’s at Westminster was demolished.188 In the legislation of Sweden the last reference to the privilege of sanctuary is found in an enactment of 1528.189 In France it was abolished by an ordonnance of 1539.190 In Spain it existed even in the nineteenth century.191 Not long ago the most important churches in Abyssinia,192 the monastery of Affaf Woira in the same country,193 and the quarter in Gondar where the head of the Abyssinian clergy has his residence,194 were reported to be asylums for criminals. And the same is the case with the old Christian churches among the Suanetians of the Caucasus.195

The right of sanctuary has been ascribed to various causes. Obviously erroneous is the suggestion that places of refuge were established with a view to protecting unintentional offenders from punishment or revenge.196 The restriction of the privilege of sanctuary to cases of accidental injuries is not at all general, and where it occurs it is undoubtedly an innovation due to moral or social considerations. Very frequently this privilege has been attributed to a desire to give time for the first heat of resentment to pass over before the injured party could seek redress.197 But although I admit that such a desire may have helped to preserve the right of asylum where it has once come into existence, I do not believe that it could account for the origin of this right. We should remember that the privilege of sanctuary not only affords temporary protection to the refugee, but in many cases altogether exempts him from punishment or retaliation, and that shelter is given even to animals which have fled to a sacred place. And, if the theory referred to were correct, how could we explain the fact that the right of asylum is particularly attached to sanctuaries?

It has been said that the right of sanctuary bears testimony to the power of certain places to transmit their virtues to those who entered them.198 But we have no evidence that the fugitive is supposed to partake of the sanctity of the place which shelters him. In Morocco persons who are permanently attached to mosques or the shrines of saints are generally regarded as more or less holy, but this is never the case with casual visitors or suppliants; hence it is hardly for fear of the refugee that his pursuer refrains from laying hands on him. Professor Robertson Smith has stated part of the truth in saying that “the assertion of a man’s undoubted rights as against a fugitive at the sanctuary is regarded as an encroachment on its holiness.”199 There is an almost instinctive fear not only of shedding blood,200 but of disturbing the peace in a holy place; and if it is improper to commit any act of violence in the house of another man,201 it is naturally considered equally offensive, and also infinitely more dangerous, to do so in the homestead of a supernatural being. In the Tonga Islands, for instance, “it is forbidden to quarrel or fight upon consecrated ground.”202 But this is only one aspect of the matter; another, equally important, still calls for an explanation. Why should the gods or saints themselves be so anxious to protect criminals who have sought refuge in their sanctuaries? Why do they not deliver them up to justice through their earthly representatives?