Thecomparativeantiquityofthevariousstepsintheprocedurearenot，Ithink，difficulttodetect。Nothingcanbemorearchaicthanthepicturepresentedbyitsmorevenerabledetails。Theseizureofthecattle，therescueandthecounter-seizure，belongtotheoldestpracticesofmankind。Wewerecarriedback，bytheLegisActioSacramentioftheRomans，toasuddenfightoverdisputedpropertybarelystoppedbyacasualpasser-by。Here，notinacity-community，butamongtheancientlegalformsofahalf-pastoral，half-agriculturalpeople，wecomeuponplaintracesofaforay。ButtheforaywhichsurvivesintheoldLawofDistressisnot，likethecombatoftheancientRomanAction，ameredramaticrepresentation。Uptoacertainpointitisareality，andthemostprobableaccountofitsoriginisthatitisagenuinelydisorderlyproceedingwhichthelawstepsintoregulate。YouwillseepresentlythatthereareotherindependentreasonsforthinkingthatsomeoftheearliestinterferencesofthepowerwhichwecalltheLaw，theState，ortheKing，withhigh-handedviolenceconsisted，neitherinwhollyforbiddingitnorinassumingactivejurisdictionoverthequarrelwhichprovokedit，butinlimitingit，prescribingformsforit，orturningittonewpurposes。Thusthenextseriesofincidentsinthepracticeofdistraint——theimpounding，thestresslaiduponpledgeorsecurity，andtheacknowledgmentofcontinuingownershipwhichisimpliedintheliabilityofthepersondistrainedupontofeedthecattle，andintherulethatthedistrainorshallnotworkthem——belongtoanewerrangeofideaswhichdictatethefirstattemptstomoderatereprisalsandregulaterevengeforwrong。Distressnowbecomesasemi-orderlycontrivanceforextortingsatisfaction。Manyvestigesofthisancientfunctionremain。IthasbeenobservedbyBlackstoneandothersthatthemodifiedexemptionofcertainclassesofgoodsfromdistraint——plough-oxen，forexample，andtoolsoftrade——
　　wasnotinitsorigintheleastintendedasakindnesstotheowner。Itwasentailedbytheverynatureofthewholeproceeding，sincewithouttheinstrumentsoftillageorhandicraftthedebtorcouldneverpayhisdebt。Apassageinthe’DialogusdeScaccario’ii。14，prescribingtheorderinwhichthegoodsoftheKing’sdebtorsaretobesold，stronglybearsoutthisview。
　　Latestintheorderofproceeding，andlatestprobablyindate，camethedirectinterpositionoftheState。TheKingstepsin，first。inwhatweshouldnowcallhisadministrativecapacity。Hisadministrativedeputy，theSheriff，oncomplaintmadebytheirowner，Followsupthecattle，demandsasightofthem，raisesthehueandcryifitberefused，andseizestwicetheirnumberifthebeastshavebeendrivenaway。Evenwhenheobtainshisview，hecandonothingunlessthecattle-owner，denyingtherightofhisadversarytodistrain，ispreparedwithsecuritythathewilltrythequestionbetweentheminaCourtofJustice。Thustardilydoesthatpowermakeitsappearancewhichaccordingtoournotionsshouldlongsincehaveappearedonthescene，thejudicialpoweroftheCommonwealth。ItsjurisdictionisobviouslyacquiredthroughtheactoftheSheriffinrestoringthecattleuponpledgegiven。Thedistrainorhaslosthismaterialsecurity，thecattle。Theownerofthecattlehasbecomepersonally，bound。Andthusbothareplacedunderacompulsionwhichdrivesthemintheendtoajudicialarbitration。
　　Nearlysixhundredyearsago，thecontrastbetweentheancientproceedingsinReplevinandsuitsconductedonwhatwerethenmodernprincipleswasalreadystriking。ThesecondchapteroftheStatuteofWestminstertheSecondisaimedatcertaincontrivancesbywhichtenantscontrivedtodefeatthelord’sremedybydistress；and，ingivingtheKing’sJusticesjurisdictioninsuchcases，itgoesontosaythatsuchaprovisiondoesnotmilitateagainsttheprincipleoftheCommonLawwhichforbidstheremovalofsuitstotheJusticesonthepetitionofadefendant。’For，’itadds，’althoughatfirstsightthetenantmayseemtobeplaintiffandthelorddefendant，yetinreality，regardbeinghadtothefactthatthelorddistrainsandsuesforservicesandduesbehind，heisratherplaintifforcomplainantthandefendant。’TheactionofReplevinisinfactanexcellentillustrationofthedifferencebetweenancientandmodernjuridicalprinciples。Accordingtoideasnowconfirmedinus，thepersonwhosetsaCourtofJusticeinmotionisthepersonwhocomplainsofawrong。Inthecasesupposed，thisisnotthemandistraineduponbutthemanwhodistrains。Heitiswhohassufferedaninjuryforwhichhemadereprisalsonhisadversary’sproperty。YetitishisadversarywhohastostartthelegalprocedureandtoconstitutehimselfplaintiffintheActionofReplevin。ThereasonwhyamodernCourtofJusticewouldinsistontakingthewholedisputeintoitsownhands，anddealingwithitinitsownwayfromtheverybeginning，isthat，havingalwaysthefullcommandofthepublicforce，itissureofbeingabletocompelthesubmissionofthedefendanttoitsjurisdictionandofcoercinghimintheendtillhedoesjustice，howeverlongthecoercionmaybedelayed。Butattheeratowhichtheprocedureindistressoriginallybelonged，theCourthadnosuchassuranceofpower；andhencethepersonassumedtohaveagrievanceisallowedtoproceedaccordingtotheprimitivemethod，whichhastheadvantageofgivingtheothersidethestrongestinducementstocallinthejudicialauthorityoftheStateandsubmittoitsdecision。
　　TheinformationfurnishedtousrespectingthisprimitiveprocedurebythevariousbodiesofContinentalTeutoniclawknowncollectivelyastheLegesBarbarorumisofaveryinterestingkind。AlmostallofthemcontainreferencestoPignoratioordistraintofgoods。TheVisigothiclawexpresslyprohibitsit；
　　and，attheotherendofthescale，theLombardiclawhasatraceofthatlicenceofdistresswhichhassurvivedintheEnglishCommon-lawandpermitsitaftersimpledemandofpayment。ButtheSaliclaw，whichthemostlearnedGermansnowbelievetohavebeendrawnupatsomeperiodbetweenthetimeatwhichTacituswroteandthetimeatwhichtheFranksbrokeintotheEmpire，containsaseriesofverypeculiarandinstructiveprovisionsonthesubject，whichhavebeenforthefirsttimefullyinterpretedbySohm。Underthissystem，Distressisnotyetajudicialremedy；itisstillanextrajudicialmodeofredress，butithasbeenincorporatedwitharegularandhighlycomplexprocedure。A
　　successionofnoticeshavetobegiveninsolemnformbythecomplainanttothepersonofwhomhecomplains，andwhosepropertyheproposestoseize。NorcanheproceedtoseizureuntilhehassummonedthispersonbeforethePopularCourt，anduntilthePopularOfficeroftheCourt，theThunginus，haspronouncedaformulalicensingdistraint。Then，andnottillthen，hecanmakewhatweshouldcalladistressuponhisadversary。Itseemsquiteclearthat，beforetheConquest，attemptsweremadeinEnglandtonarrowthelibertyofdistraintbythesameclassofrestrictionswhichwefindintheSalicLawandthealliedTeutonicbodiesofusage。TheseprovisionshavetheirclosecounterpartintheordinanceofCanutethatnomanistotakenamsunlesshehasdemandedrightthreetimesintheHundred；ifheobtainnojusticethethirdtime，heistogototheShire-gemot；theshireistoappointhimafourthtime，and，ifthatfails，hemaytakethedistress。
　　ItistoberemarkedthattheprocessoftheSalicLawwhichanswerstoourdistressisespeciallyaremedyincertaincasesofbreachofcontract。Distraint，theseizingofnams，wascertainlyemployedtoenforceasimilarclassofdemandsunderoldEnglishlawbeforetheConquest；andthepracticeseemstohavebeenknowninBracton’sday，thoughthebrevityofhisnoticedoesnotpermitustounderstandfullyitscourseandcharacter。InthisrespectthePignorationoftheContinentalTeutoniclawismorearchaicthanthedistresswithwhichwearefamiliarinEngland，sincethefragmentofthesystemwhichhassurvivedinourCommonlawanditistothisthatitprobablyowesitssurvivalwasfromthefirstpre-eminentlyaremedybywhichthelordcompelledhistenantstorenderhimtheirservices。ButontheotherhanditisinterestingtoobservethatourEnglishdistressisinsomeparticularsofamorearchaiccharacterthanthecorrespondingcompulsoryprocessoftheLegesBarbarorum。ThusnoticeoftheintentiontodistrainwasneverinEnglandessentialtothelegalityofdistressTrentv。Hunt，9
　　Exch。Rep。20，althoughstatute-lawrendersitnecessarytomakeasaleofthedistrainedpropertylegal；andagain，intheoldestascertainablestateofourCommon-law，thoughdistraintsometimesfollowedaproceedinginthelord’sCourt，yetitdidnotnecessarilypresupposeorrequireit。
　　ItshouldbeunderstoodthattheFrankishprocedurewascompletelyatthedisposalofthecomplainant。Itisnotastrictlyjudicialprocedure，butratheraprocedureregulatingextrajudicialredress。Ifthecomplainantobservestheproperforms，thepartoftheCourtinlicensingseizureispurelypassive。EvenaftertheexhaustiveexaminationwhichthispartoftheSalicLawhasundergonefromProfessorSohm，itisverydifficulttosaywhetheratanypointoftheprocedurethedefendanthadtheopportunityofputtinginasubstantialdefence；butitseemscertainthat，wheneverhecoulddothis，heappearedvirtuallyasaplaintifflikethedistraineeinourActionofReplevin，andthereisnodoubtthat，ifhesubmittedorwasunsuccessfulinattackingtheproceedingsoftheotherside，hepaidnotonlytheoriginaldebtbutvariousadditionalpenaltiesentailedbyneglecttocomplywithpreviousnoticestodischargeit。Suchaprocedureseemstousfoundedonthenowmonstrousassumptionthatplaintiffsarealwaysintherightanddefendantsalwaysinthewrong。Yettheassumptionwouldnotperhapshavestrucktheearliestauthorsoflegalimprovementasaltogethermonstrous，norcouldtheyhavequitecomprehendedthemodernprinciplewhichcompelsthecomplainanttoestablishatalleventsaprim*faciecase。Withthem，themanmostlikelytobeintherightwouldappeartobethemanwhofacedthemanifoldrisksattendingtheefforttoobtainredress，themanwhocomplainedtothePopularAssembly，themanwhocriedforjusticetotheKingsittinginthegate。Itisonlywhenviolentwronghasceasedtoberife，whenthedangersofcontestingtheoppressionsofpowerfulmenhavebecomeinsignificant，whenthelawhasbeenlongandregularlyadministeredaccordingtotechnicalprocedure，thatunjustclaimsareseentobehardlylesscommonthanunjustrefusalstosatisfythem。Inoneparticularcase，thecomplaintoftheKing，theoldassumptionthatcomplainantsarepresumablyintherightwaskeptlongaliveamongus，andhadmuchtodowiththeobstinatedislikeoflawyerstoallowingprisonerstobedefendedbyCounsel。
　　GaiusspeakingoftheLegisActionesgenerally，observesthat’theyfellintodiscredit，becausethroughtheexcessivesubtletyoftheancientlawyers，thingscametosuchapassthathewhocommittedthesmallesterrorfailedaltogether。’
　　Blackstone，manycenturiesafterwards，hasthefollowingremarkontheEnglishLawofDistress：’Themanyparticularswhichattendthetakingofadistressusedformerlytomakeitahazardouskindofproceeding；for，ifanyoneirregularitywascommitted，itvitiatedthewhole。’
　　Iquotethesepassages，notonlyonaccountofthecurioussimilarityoflanguagebetweentwowritersofwhomthelatercouldnotpossiblyhavereadtheearlier，butbecausetheexcessivetechnicalityofancientlawwhichtheybothnoticegoessomewaytoexplaintheseverityandone-sidednessoftheoldTeutonicprocedure。Thepowerofseizingaman’spropertyextra-judiciallyinsatisfactionofyourdemandwas，asProfessorSohmjustlyremarks，asortoftwo-edgedsword。Youmightbringyouradversarytothegroundbyit，butyouwereextremelylikelytoinjureyourself。For，unlessthecomplainantwhosoughttodistrainwentthroughalltheactsandwordsrequiredbythelawwiththemostrigorousaccuracy，heinhisturn，besidesfailinginhisobject，incurredavarietyofpenalties，whichcouldbejustasharshlyexactedashisownoriginaldemand。Thedifficultyofputtingtheprocedureintooperationthusatoncemadedisputantscautiousinresortingtoit，andseemedtomeningeneraltocompensateforitsinherentinequitableness。Thisconsideration，however，thoughitexplainsinparthowtheharshancientlawreconcileditselftothesenseofright，isnotbyitselfsufficienttoaccountfortheformwhichitassumedintheTeutonicCodes，orforthevitalityofaportionofitamidourowninstitutions。
　　IcannotdoubtthatthepracticewhichIhavecalledbythegeneralnameofDistresskeptitsplaceinancientTeutoniclawpartlyasamere’survival。’Ihavealreadyinsistedthatonegreatcharacteristicoftheprimitiveageswasthefewnessofhumanideas。Societies，justemergingfromthesavagestate，hadbeenusedtoassociateredressofwrongwiththeseizureofawrong-doer’sgoods，andtheywereunablementallyquitetodisconnectthetwoevenwhentheybegantoregulatethepractice。
　　Theydidnot，therefore，supersededistressbyawhollynewsystem，butengrafteditonalaterprocedure，whichoccasionallytooktheformsocuriouslypreservedinitsmainfeaturestoourowndaybytheEnglishCommonlaw，butwhichatarelativelylaterdateandmoregenerallymaybebelievedtohaveshapeditselfonthemodeloftherulesobservedbytheSalianFranks。