Definition
Privileged places were specific locations in and around London that, during the medieval and early modern periods, claimed a customary right of sanctuary — meaning that persons sheltering within their boundaries could not be arrested for debt or other civil process. The privilege was not granted by statute but arose from historical custom and ecclesiastical tradition, and it offered debtors and others fleeing creditors a practical, if legally contested, refuge.
The principal privileged places recognized in English legal history included Whitefriars, the Savoy, Salisbury Court, Ram Alley, Mitre Court, Fuller's Rents, Mintage Close, the Minories, the Mint, and Clink or Deadman's Place — all within or near the City of London. These enclaves functioned as de facto no-go zones for sheriffs and bailiffs, and their populations came to include not only genuine debtors but criminals and others seeking to evade legal accountability altogether.
The pretended right was abolished by statute. The Act 8 & 9 Will. 3, c. 26 (1697) provided for the lawful execution of civil process within these places and stripped them of any remaining claim to sanctuary status. The concept thereafter ceased to have operative legal meaning in English law.
---
Common Confusion
Privileged places should not be confused with evidentiary privilege — the modern legal doctrine protecting certain communications (attorney-client, spousal, clergy-penitent) from compelled disclosure. The two concepts share the word "privilege" but are historically and doctrinally unrelated. A researcher encountering "privileged places" in historical English legal sources is reading about sanctuary geography, not evidentiary protection. Confusion is especially easy when searching across eras in a corpus that contains both historical and contemporary legal materials.
Privileged places also differ from sanctuary in the ecclesiastical sense. Sanctuary in its classic form attached to consecrated ground — churches, churchyards — and derived from canon law. Privileged places were largely secular enclaves whose claims to immunity had grown by custom and were far more precarious legally. The distinction mattered to courts of the era and should matter to researchers interpreting historical pleadings or chancery records.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is almost exclusively a historical English law concept. No modern American or Commonwealth jurisdiction uses "privileged places" as a term of art. A researcher who encounters it in any document post-1700 should treat it as either (a) a historical reference to the pre-abolition sanctuary system, or (b) a potential anachronism or error.
Several research traps are worth flagging:
First, full-text corpus searches on "privileged places" will surface results across very different legal domains — historical sanctuary law, constitutional law discussions of protected spaces (e.g., the home in Fourth Amendment analysis), and evidentiary privilege scholarship. Context-checking is essential before drawing any cross-document conclusions.
Second, Bouvier's entry reflects the state of English law at abolition and treats the privilege as already extinguished. Researchers using Bouvier to understand the pre-abolition period must supplement with other sources, as Bouvier's framing is retrospective and dismissive ("pretended right").
Third, the specific statute — 8 & 9 Will. 3, c. 26 — is the definitive terminus for this doctrine. Any source asserting the continued vitality of privileged places after 1697 warrants skepticism.
Fourth, the Mint (Southwark) and the Minories were among the most notorious of these enclaves and appear frequently in historical legal, literary, and administrative records from the seventeenth century. Researchers working in that period on debt enforcement, sheriff's process, or London social history will encounter these names and need the legal context.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary provides the clearest single-source summary of privileged places in the American legal dictionary tradition. Bouvier's treatment is concise and accurate as far as it goes: it names the principal places, characterizes the immunity as a "pretended right," and correctly identifies 8 & 9 Will. 3, c. 26 as the abolishing statute.
What Bouvier's does not do is explain the historical development of these claims — how they arose, how they were contested, or what life within these enclaves actually looked like during their operational period. Bouvier writes from the perspective of a common law systematizer who views the privilege as an irregularity already corrected, not as a functioning institution worth analyzing on its own terms.
No other major American legal dictionary of the historical period — not Black's in its early editions, not Rapalje & Lawrence — gives privileged places significant independent treatment. This reflects the doctrine's purely English character and its obsolescence well before American legal literature developed its own reference infrastructure.
Researchers needing depth beyond Bouvier's summary should look to English legal history sources and parliamentary records rather than the American dictionary shelf.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Privileged places as a legal concept never took root in American or colonial law. The doctrine was an artifact of English local custom, abolished by Parliament in 1697. It has no operative meaning in any current jurisdiction.
---