ABSTRACT
As has recently been pointed out in a more general context, sanctuary was a social and cultural, as well as a legal institution.1 It had two quite distinct points of origin. On the one hand was the sanctity of conse crated ground, and more particularly the holiness of relics and the shrines of particular saints. On the other was the jurisdictional fran chise or liberty, in which the king had waived his rights in favour of the franchise holder. What might be termed ‘ordinary sanctuary’ was based entirely upon the former. The claimant was supposed to have commit ted, or to have been suspected of committing, an offence which placed his (or her) life in jeopardy. The protection lasted for 40 days, at the end of which time the fugitive had either to surrender to the king’s officers, or to abjure the realm. There were many minor variations in different places, including elaborate precautions to ensure that sworn abjurers did actually leave the country, but the substance was everywhere the same. Every church, or other piece of consecrated ground was a sanctu ary in that sense, and what it offered was not immunity from prosecution so much as a ‘cooling off’ period. It was not the law which was frustrated, but the lynch mob. Jurisdictional franchises offered no such guaranteed immunity, however limited, but on the other hand they were not restricted in the same way. Any person could move permanently into a liberty, with the permission of the lord, and an offender so doing would have to be extradited to stand trial outside the franchise for any offence committed there. On the other hand, any offence committed within the franchise would have to be tried in the lord’s court, and lords varied greatly in their enthusiasm for pursuing criminals.2 A major religious house like Westminster Abbey partook of both natures, and its custody of the shrine of St Edward gave it a spiritual status enjoyed by only some half dozen other houses in England.
