country. The bounds were indicated by crosses. The base and
part of the shaft of one of them is, or was lately, to be seen in a
hedge on the road to Skidby. Others were erected at Molescroft, on the
road towards Cherry or North Burton, and near Killingwoldgrove, on the
Bishop's Burton road. At Durham, however, if we follow Mr. Forster--and
he makes out an excellent case--the precinct included the whole of the
County Palatine, and the term of protection, instead of being confined
to the ordinary period of forty days, was perpetual. At York, Beverley,
and Hexham there was what may be termed an outermost precinct and
various inner precincts, the relative sanctity of which is shown by the
scale of punishments inflicted for violation. In Prior Richard's history
of Hexham it is stated that there were at that place four crosses, each
of them erected at a distance of one mile from the church, and in a
different direction. Anyone who arrested a fugitive within these limits
was fined two _hundreth_, or sixteen pounds. For an arrest "infra
villam" the penalty was twofold. If the person were seized "infra muros
atrii ecclesiae," it was threefold; and if within the church itself,
sixfold, to which was added penance "sicut de sacrilegiis." Supposing,
however, that anyone, "vesano spiritu agitatus diabolico ausu quemquam
capere praesumpserit in cathedra lapidea juxta altare quam Angli vocant
_fridstol_, id est, cathedram quietudinis vel pacis, vel etiam ad
feretrum sanctarum reliquiarum quod est post atlare"--then the crime was
_botolos_ (without remedy); no monetary payment could be received as
compensation. When Leland was at Beverley, he was shown a frithstool, on
which he made the following note: "Haec sedes lapidea Freedstool dicitur,
i.e., Pacis Cathedra, ad quam reus perveniens omnimodam habet
securitatem." There was a frithstool endowed with similar privileges at
York Minster, and another at Durham. Stone seats claimed to be
frithstools are still shown at Hexham and Beverley.

Of all the localities which drew to themselves especial distinction as
sanctuaries none rivals in antiquarian interest the monastery of Durham.
This is because of the existence of an ancient work on the "Rites of
Durham," which enters in considerable detail into the ceremonial
observed on such occasions, and was received for a long time as
authoritative. Recent criticism by Mr. R. H. Forster has rather impaired
the credibility of the document. He points o