Shannon McSheffrey's excellent new book presents startling evidence of a resurgence in the numbers of people seeking sanctuary in the early Tudor period. This was an area in need of new research: Isobel Thornley established the narrative of sanctuary's late medieval decline and extinction in two articles published in the 1930s. Since then, of course, an entirely new picture of premodern law and the various means of mitigating capital sentences has emerged. McSheffrey's comprehensive research has unearthed more than 1800 sanctuary-seekers in the period 1400–1550. This might appear to be a small average of twelve per year, but in fact the peaks cluster during 1515–1535, showing a more significant uptake. What is the explanation for this expansion at a time when sanctuary seeking had previously (and perhaps logically) have been thought to be in decline?

One important point is the establishment of several religious houses as places of permanent sanctuary “chartered sanctuary” as McSheffrey calls it (8). These major sanctuaries comprised the abbeys of Westminster, Glastonbury, and Beaulieu; the collegiate churches of St Martin le Grand and St John's Beverley; and Durham Cathedral. Before the introduction of chartered sanctuaries, a sanctuary seeker would run to the nearest parish church and receive 40 days’ immunity before having to abjure the realm. However, McSheffrey has found evidence from King's Bench records from the 1390s onwards that individuals might choose to run past several parish churches en route to the permanent protection offered by a chartered sanctuary.

Another important factor in the revival of sanctuary was the role of the Wars of the Roses, promoting a “safe haven” in the face of civil war and frequent regime change (15). Queens Elizabeth, Margaret of Anjou, and Anne Neville were all prominent sanctuary-seekers. Presumably they felt their opponents would be least likely to violate a sacred, religious space. This did not always prove to be the case; Edward IV ordered the execution of fifteen men who claimed sanctuary in Tewkesbury Abbey after the battle. But it did raise awareness of sanctuary and, although most of those who sought this kind of refuge were not queens and nobles, there was a particular attraction for aristocrats who were increasingly facing felony prosecution. Therefore, there was a need for “principled ways to make exceptions” in the forms of benefit of clergy, pardon, and sanctuary (19).

McSheffrey's meticulous research leaves the reader wanting to know more about living conditions in these sanctuaries, a question presumably beyond the reach of the sources at our disposal. She does point out that those with the least private means would find it hard to reside in sanctuary for long, because while in sanctuary, people had to provide for their own sustenance. This, McSheffrey reasons, is also why 98% of the sanctuary-seekers she identified were men. Interestingly, most people only spent 6 months or thereabouts in sanctuary before securing pardon, absconding, or giving up. This transient population existed alongside a small core of longer term sanctuary men (e.g., twenty-two men in Westminster in 1533). In London, the precinct around St Martin le Grand proved attractive to people born overseas, who could practice their trade outside the reach of the London guilds. The area developed a reputation for highly skilled leather workers and supplied high-status patrons, including Prince Arthur. Thus we have a picture of small communities of men, a few of whom were long-term residents, finding ways to make a living.

McSheffrey also gives a fascinating insight into the claims of the Hospitallers to provide sanctuary in their properties. They already offered Christian burials to suicides and felons in their churchyards, and so sanctuary might have been a logical extension. A brother of the order was sometimes sent to a court session to collect the bodies of executed felons for burial. In 1506, when two men on trial spotted one such brother, they grabbed his cloak, claiming immunity. One ended up pleading benefit of clergy, and the other eventually received a pardon.

Sanctuary was bound up with English Christian monarchy and it could have been entirely subsumed into the common law as a way to mitigate sentences after the dissolution of the monasteries. However, an attempt to transfer sanctuary rights to eight designated towns failed to take hold, with civic authorities objecting to the possible influx of disruptive individuals. Sanctuary was finally abolished by statute in 1603.

This expert study rewrites the history of English sanctuary and sanctuary-seekers. Of course, it cannot be exhaustive, and it would be interesting to examine further the contemporary opposition to sanctuary. McSheffrey takes care to emphasize the subjective nature of the sources, and further research might also develop the analysis of language to identify common tropes and rhetorical devices in claims to sanctuary. McSheffrey's book succeeds in pointing the ways forward to new and intriguing avenues of research.