A HISTORY OF DURHAM 



because his name had been wanting in various commissions connected with 

 Scottish affairs."- 



About this time an interesting if fitful Hght is thrown upon the otherwise 

 obscure history of the sanctuary at Durham. In the cathedral registers now 

 preserved in the treasury of the church there occur between the years 1477 

 and 1524^'' some 247 entries relating to the taking of sanctuary. It is 

 curious that so particular a record should be left of these while the earlier 

 centuries of the history of the sanctuary are practically unillumined by the 

 slightest reference, save a mere mention now and again in other documents. 

 It is also remarkable that the entries should be set in the cathedral register for 

 those years, and those only, instead of in a sanctuary book, as at Beverley. 

 Analysis of the instances named discloses certain facts worth noting. The 

 crimes alleged are murder and homicide, debt, horse-stealing, cattle-stealing, 

 escape from prison, house-breaking, theft, and one or two technical offences, 

 such as harbouring a thief. Of the 247 cases, 195 are connected with 

 murder and homicide. As to the locality of the fugitive, Yorkshire gives 

 120 instances, Northumberland 58, Westmorland 20, Cumberland 13, 

 Lancashire g, Middlesex 4, Lincolnshire and Warwickshire 3, Nottingham- 

 shire and Cheshire 2, with single entries from Surrey, Suffolk, Somerset, 

 Northamptonshire, Derbyshire, and Gloucestershire. Durham county, of 

 course, does not supply instances (save two by an apparent mistake), since a 

 crime in the county broke the peace of St. Cuthbert, and obliged the accused 

 to seek sanctuary at some other place, say Beverley, or more probably Ripon, 

 though there were others not far off. Thus it appears that guilty persons 

 from all parts might take refuge at Durham, where, in accordance with well- 

 known practice and the evidence of the entries in the register, they were 

 examined and, if approved, were suffered to remain. It has always been the 

 custom at Durham, in showing the sanctuary knocker,"* which still exists, 

 to draw largely for description of the sanctuary customs upon the Rites of 

 Durham. The somewhat garrulous reminiscences of the compiler have been 

 cited even by good antiquaries as evidence for pre-Reformation usages. The 

 value of the information supplied by this book has been recently examined, 

 together with the larger question of the nature and extent of the Durham 

 sanctuary privileges."^ Mr. Forster has reached the conclusion, upon evidence 

 not wholly indisputable, that the rights of the ' grithman ' were far more 

 extensive than a mere temporary sojourn of thirty-seven days at Durham,"^ 

 ' and that the liberty of St. Cuthbert protected him and his property within 

 the boundaries of the county palatine of Durham. ... At any rate such a 

 conclusion accords better than any other with the mediaeval reputation of 

 St. Cuthbert, and the princely position of the old-time bishops of Durham ; 



'** The same probabilities have been thought to attach to the bishop's attitude in 1492 in Warbeck's insur- 

 rection ; Hutchinson, op. cit. i, 452. 



"^ Printed with an introduction by Rev. Canon Chevallier in Sanctuarium Dunelmense et Beverlacense, 

 {Surtees Soc). The whole subject needs fresh examination in the light of wider knowledge. 



"' See a recent paper on the ' Knocker' ; Brit. Arch. Assoc. Journ. (New Ser.), ix, 1 17-32. 



'** Notes on Durham and other North Country Sanctuaries, by R. H. Forster, esq., hon. treasurer of the 

 British Archaeological Association, reprinted from its Journal, Aug. 1905. 



"' Mr. Forster's conclusion is attractive, and, with such positive evidence as he has collected, it is probable. 

 Two things are necessary to prove it, (l) a larger number of particular instances than those he cites in support 

 of his contention that the fugitives sought the liberty of St. Cuthbert infra Tynam et Tysam ; (z) a collection of 

 definite mediaeval allusions to prove that the extensive character of the sanctuary rights at Durham was 

 generally acknowledged. 



26 



