The Sanctuary

Above: Illustrating picture about Norse aggression

Sanctuary afforded another means of protection. The life of Colm Cille, so fruitful in illustrations of early Irish customs and institutions, affords important examples of the violation of sanctuary and the consequences thereof. For violation of sanctuary at the Feis of Tara, for instance, and subsequent violation of the sanctuary extended by Colm Cille to the culprit, the battle of Cul Dreimhne was "fought in 561. For the violation of Colm’s protection, also, was the battle of Cul Feadha  near  Clonard  fought   in   587.    Sanctuary,   though always liable to violation, survived the excesses that accompanied Norse aggression ; and its privileges were confirmed fry the Council of Bri MacTaidhg in 1158. The protection of the saints, the successor of Patrick, the clergy and the laity, as of the Staff of Jesus and the sacred relics, was generally sought in relation to sanctuary.
As long as a criminal was in a territory it was not lawful to sue his next of kin or his kinsman surety, but to sue himself according to his rank and to make a distraint upon him. If he absconded, the plaintiff might sue the next of kin or the surety.
The life of every law-breaker was forfeit, that is, it was lawful to kill the thief without name, when there was no power of arresting him at the time of committing the trespass, and the slayer was exempt on account of every person killed in his guise.
" Thou shalt not kill a captive unless he be thine," says the Scanchus Mor ; " that is a captive condemned to death. It is lawful for the person who had him in custody to kill him, and the person who assisted him is exempt if the custodian were unable to kill him. But if he was, a fine for an unjust death is due from him who assisted and is obtained by the family of the captive."
When a prisoner escaped, through defective fetters, his custodian paid full fine for the offence for which the prisoner had been in custody and full fine for every offence committed subsequently until he submitted to the law.
A person who committed frequent crimes was outlawed. His family had to pay seven cumhals to the chief to exonerate themselves from his crime, as well as seven cumhals to the church, and two cumhals each to the four parties with whom he had cairde relations. If the family exempted him from his crimes and restored him, by certain formalities they had to pay the same amount again as a kind of surety for his future behaviour.
Adults were subject to penalties if they neglected to notify danger to cattle or other animals ; to fines, if they distrained unjustly,  or contrary  to law.    Persons who witnessed an offence or neglect of duty were liable to fine if, themselves negligent  in   the  matter.    Fines  were  imposed  for  taking fish, trees, fruit, straw for people’s bedding ;  for injury to a beast that gave milk or was capable of work, and so on.