Why Could the Sheriff Not Enter That District? It Was Outside His Authority
By the BrainSnail editorial team. How these articles are written and checked, and how to tell us when one is wrong.
Areas existed within England where the ordinary officers of the crown had no power to act, because the right to run the place had been granted away. Some survived into the nineteenth century.
What the grant conveyed
The arrangement transferred the right to exercise particular royal functions within a defined area to somebody else, usually a great landholder, a bishop or an abbey. What was granted varied and was set out in the charter, but commonly included holding courts and keeping the profits of justice, appointing the officers who executed writs, taking the fines and forfeitures that would otherwise go to the crown, and excluding the sheriff of the county from entering to perform his duties. The area remained part of the kingdom and subject to the king's law, and the difference was who administered that law and who profited from doing so.
Why kings granted them
The reasons were mostly immediate and financial:
- •Rewarding service without spending money from the treasury
- •Securing a frontier by giving somebody a strong interest in holding it
- •Endowing a religious foundation with an income
- •Raising cash, since such rights were sold
- •Avoiding the cost of administering a remote or difficult district
- •Buying support at a moment when support was needed
What went wrong with them
Handing out pieces of royal authority creates exactly the problems that might be expected, and the records are full of them. Offenders fled across the boundary and could not be pursued, so the areas acquired reputations as refuges for debtors and criminals, and several districts in London and Westminster were notorious for it into the eighteenth century. Officers of the crown attempting to serve process were resisted and occasionally killed. Standards of justice varied, since the holder profited from the fines imposed. And boundaries were disputed constantly, because a great deal of money turned on which side of a line an offence had occurred.
Where the sanctuary rights fitted
The most notorious of these privileges was the right of sanctuary, which was related but distinct. A fugitive reaching certain churches and their precincts could not be removed by force, and in a small number of places that protection extended over a substantial district and could be claimed for extended periods. Those who claimed it were normally required to confess and then to leave the kingdom, walking to a designated port under safe conduct, which removed them permanently. The arrangement was defended as mercy and used as a business, since districts holding the right attracted permanent populations of debtors who lived there and traded from it.
How they were ended
Removing the arrangements took centuries and proceeded piece by piece rather than at a stroke. Legislation in 1536 abolished the criminal jurisdictions in the areas that had held the widest powers, notably the palatinate districts in the north and the Welsh marches, transferring criminal authority back to the crown while leaving many civil privileges intact. Sanctuary rights were restricted in the same period and effectively abolished in the early seventeenth century. Municipal reform in 1835 swept away most of the remaining urban ones. A handful of ceremonial survivals persist, including the separate arrangements for the Duchy of Lancaster and for the City of London.
The takeaway
A charter could transfer the right to hold courts, appoint officers, take fines and exclude the sheriff within a defined area, which rewarded service and raised cash without spending from the treasury. Offenders crossed the boundary and could not be pursued, so several districts became refuges for debtors. Legislation in 1536 removed the criminal jurisdictions and municipal reform in 1835 swept away most of the rest.