THE

ENGLISH REVIEW,

For SEPTEMBER 1789.

ART. I. Archæologia; or, Mifcellaneous Tracts relating to Antiquity. Published by the Society of Antiquaries of London. Vol. VIII. 4to. Il. Is. White. London, 1787.

TH

HESE volumes of the Antiquarian Tranfactions have been fucceffively cenfured as they appeared, for confifting only of petty pieces, differtations on minute objects, and difquifitions concerning trifles. But they have been fo cenfured, we apprehend, only by the hafty and the inconfiderate. Many of the effays have been important, and all have been useful. Such a compilation as this, whether it iffues from the Antiquarian or the Royal Society, is neceffarily formed from the contributions of its respective members. Each takes a subject for his pen. Each is to allow room for the other. No one therefore is to come forward with fuch a large differtation, as would be to the exclufion of many. Such a differtation fhould compose a publication of itself, and cannot be admitted into a mifcellany like the prefent. And the entertainment is to confift of a variety of dishes, no one large and maffy, but each uniting with each to fill the table agreeably. This neceffarily precludes any fingle piece of magnitude. Every piece is only one among many. It could only be very important therefore, at the expence of the reft. The good effect of all is fecured, by the useful variety of the whole. And the mifcellany of a literary fociety, is like one of the genteel dinners of the present times; from which every L ENG. REV. VOL. XIV, SEPT. 1789, thing

thing robust and vaft is precluded, and of which an elegant assem◄ blage compofes the luxury.

To cenfure therefore fuch a volume as this before us, for containing effays in it more agreeable than important, and more pleafing than bulky; is to cenfure it for being what it profeffes to be, for not acting contrary to its own defign and purpose, for not ceafing to be a mifcellany. It is as abfurd as it would be, to cenfure a modern entertainment, for not introducing a firloin of beef amidst the delicacies of a petit fouper.

In the cana dubia now before us, we fhall prefent the fubftance of each dish to our guests. We fhall generally give them fuch a taste of each that they may judge at once of the materials and the cookery. We fhall thus enable them, like true Frenchmen, to fit down to our table, and partake of almost every difh upon it.

I. A Sketch of the Hiftory of the Afylum or Sanctuary, from its Origin to the final Abolition of it in the Reign of King James I. By the Rev. Samuel Pegge.'

This indefatigable and useful antiquary traces the hiftory of Lanctuaries from their primary inftitution in the law of Mofes, through the periods of the Greeks and Romans, to their full eftablishment under Chriftianity by Pope Boniface V, in the feventh century. I have termed,' he fays, Boniface's mode of fanctuary peftilent; because, inftead of recurring, as one would expect from his holiness, to the laudable and rational fyftem of the Hebrews, he embraced and patronised the very worst corruptions of the Greeks and Romans.' He then examines the extent of this privilege. All confecrated churches in general,' he says, were poffeffed of the franchise of protecting criminals.' Yet oratories and private chapels enjoyed no privilege.' But criminals did not often refort to inferior or parish churches, and for this obvious reafon; they could not fo well be accommodated there, fo comfortably maintained, nor fo powerfully protected; for the clergyman, who was often but little able, was obliged to fupport his refugees; and, as we are told, they were not only to be fupplied with victuals, but with raiment, habitation, fhoes, &c. fine quibus corpus ali non poteft. The friends and relations of the fanctuary< man, however, would often be fending in victuals for his ufe; but in this they were fometimes obstructed.'

Mr. Pegge then comes to the particular nature of our own fanctuaries. He thinks there were none, among the primitive Britons. • We hear nothing,' he fays, of a fanctuary of any kind in Wales, till long after the introduction of Chriftianity into that country.' He finds fanctuaries, however, among

the

the Saxons, and in the laws of Ina. But the fugitive-was only to be protected against the rafhness and fury of his avenger; for he was ftill liable to make recompence.' Mr. Pegge finds them again, in the laws of Alfred. But Alfred's Lanctuary is evidently a Chriftian, and not a Pagan or Popish, inftitution.' The wilful murderer is condemned to death by Alfred, and fanctuary allowed only to the compelled or the unintending murderer. For all crimes except wilful murder; and Mr. Pegge thinks even for this, though in manifeft contradiction to this leading law of Alfred; fanctuary was allowed only for a term, of three days by Alfred, of nine by Athelftan, of thirtyfeven at Durham, of forty in 1 Edw. VI, and of a year at Rippon. But ftill it was for the purpose, of giving the culprit time to effect a reconciliation.' The fame principle of extending the privilege of fanctuary, to all but wilful murderers, was observed in Wales. In the laws of Howel Dha, A. D. 943, 'all forts of criminals except murderers are admitted to fanctuary.' In those of the Confeffor, the church and churchyard were to be a place of protection to every criminal,

One cannot doubt,' Mr. Pegge remarks, but that the murderer 'was to be protected, as well as other offenders.' We doubt it, however. We think the leading principle of Alfred's laws, was pursued through the whole of the Saxon period; that of denying fanctuary to the wilful murderer. We fee that very language of every criminal ufed in the laws of Aifred himself, though he has exprefsly established the diftinction between the wilful and the involuntary murderer; which is ufed in the laws fubfequent to him. And as all laws are to be interpreted in their national and idiomatick fenfe; so if this exception to the wilful murderer was understood in the laws of Alfred, we may be fure it was equally underftood in thofe of his fucceffors. We accordingly find the exception expreffed, in the cotemporary laws of Howel Dha. The Normans indeed feem to us, to have been the first legiflators in our ifland, who extended the privilege of fanctuary to the murderer. Thefe, as Mr. Pegge himfelf obferves, embraced the ordinance in its utmoft latitude; William, in founding Battle-Abbey,-made the abbey-church a place of fafety for any felon or murderer.' And, as Mr. Pegge adds, things seem to have continued very much in the fame fituation, till the extinction of the ordinance in the reign. ' of James I.'

·

Mr. Pegge, proceeding to note certain fpecialties, and modes of proceeding, occurring in authors concerning it,' speaks first of the bounds of a fanctuary. At Hexham, he fays, there • were four croffes, fet up at a certain distance from the church, in the four ways leading thereunto: now if a malefactor,

L 2

⚫ flying

flying for refuge to that church, was taken-within the croffes, the party that took-him there did forfeit two hundred,' or twice eight pound; if he took him within the town-four • hundred; if within the walls of the church-yard, then fix hundred; if within the doors of the quire, then eighteen hundred, befides penance as in cafe of facrilege; but if-out of the tone chair near the altar, called Frid-Stoll, or from among ft the holy • relicks behind the altar, the offence was not redeemable with any fum.' This gradation of local fanctities, is peculiarly amufing to the mind. At Armethwaite in Cumberland there was a Benedictine nunnery,' Mr. Pegge informs us, founded by King William Rufus; and on a pillar three yards high, placed on a rifing ground, is infcribed SANTUARIUM 1088: the pillar is fquare, and I am informed that the fanctuary-stone, which one must fuppofe to have been the frid-ftoll, is inclofed within it: this however is very wonderful, as the ftone, if it < were the frid-ftoll, ought in all reason to have been within the nunnery.' So undoubtedly it was. Nor is the information lent Mr. Pegge, and lent by one more ignorant than himself, to be attended to. The frid-ftall is not inclofed within the pillar. It would be an abfurdity in practice, to inclofe it. It is an equal abfurdity in fpeculation, to fuppofe it. And, fo far from inclofing the frid-ftoll within it, this pillar only marks the extent to which the privilege of the frid-ftoll reaches. The frid-foll is the center of the circle, and the pillar defines the line of the circumference upon one fide.

Mr. Pegge next fhews, that a crofs in a high-way;' and the house or court-yard of a prieft,-provided the premises • ftood upon the demefnes of the church; and even the palaces of our kings, the verge of the court, as it is called at this day;' were all places of protection. At Durham, the refugé knocked at the door of the Galilee, and men lay ready to let him in at any hour of the night: they then tolled the Galilee bell, that it might be known fome one had taken fanctuary; and the prior ordered, that the refugé fhould have a gown of black cloth, with a yellow cross, called St. Cuthbert's cross, at the left shoulder; he was lodged on a grate [Quere, what] within the fabrick, on the fouth-fide,' &c.

Nor let us be surprised to find the very criminals of a fanctuary, put under religious regulations. Thefe were as proper, as decency and prayers in our jails at prefent. The criminal of the fanctuary was pretty much in the fituation, of a criminal in one of our jails. Accordingly, as Mr. Pegge notes, the

English fanctuary, with all its faults and imperfections,was fill confidered as having a regard to penance; and therefore refugees were required to take an oath, not only to

• obferve

• observe the wholefome regulations of the place, but also not 'to prophane the fabbath,—to attend morning and evening 'fervice-.'

In the natural workings of the human mind, and in the tendency of the times towards an amplification of these immunities; debtors took refuge with criminals in the fanctuary, and probably about the thirteenth century.' This the temporal peers remonftrated againft, in the reign of Richard II. But the practice went on. It had previously gone on, to cover the property as well as perfons of debtors. Thus the new templars re

་

fufed to deliver up Hubert de Burgh's money to the king, Henry III, without his confent.' But this extension of the 'privilege was fure to work out its own fubverfion, by the evil confequences refulting from it. In the reign of Elizabeth, debtors were compelled to fwear, that they did not claim pri'vilege and protection, for the purpose of cheating their creditors, but only for the fafety of their perfons, when they were 'not able to pay.' And the debtor was alfo required in the fame reign, to deliver in upon oath a schedule of his debts, and of his effects wherewith he might make prefent payment; < and to fwear, that he would labour and do his utmost, to fatisfy his creditors.'

Mr. Pegge fubjoins, that the immunities and privileges of the church in regard to fanctuary, appear to have never run higher than in the thirteenth century; witnefs the conftitution of Archbishop Boniface, A. D. 1261, and of Oltobon the legate, A.D. 1269: this is faid in respect to criminals; for, as to debtors, and all the evil doings refpecting them, we hear < but little of them, either before or at that period.' This is faid by Mr. Pegge, in a strange contradiction to what he has afferted before; that probably about the thirteenth century, debtors got • admiffion into places of immunity;' and that the new tem'plars refused to deliver up Hubert de Burgh's money to the king, King Henry III,' who began his reign in 1216. The extenfion of the privilege of fanctuary to the perfons of debtors, no doubt, had taken place in the twelfth century; fince, fo early in the thirteenth, it ftretched its broad cover over the property of debtors.

¢

The general privilege of fanctuary, was at last confined to fome particular churches, and forbidden to fome particular criminals, by Henry VIII. It was again forbidden to others, by. Edward VI. In the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, a bill was brought in to take away fanctuary for debt; but it miscar<ried. And in the first year of King James I, the whole system of fanctuaries was fwept away for ever,