Itisnotpossibletoexplainallsurvivalsbysomeconveniencewhichtheyincidentallyserve。Somehaveundoubtedlybeencontinuedbysuperstition，somebymerehabit。Butthoserelicsofancientthoughtandconductwhichhavebeenkeptalivelongesthavegenerallyhadanusefulnessoftheirown。Heretheprivateredressofwrong，takenintothelegalprocedure，servedtocompeltheappearanceofthedefendantandhissubmissiontojurisdictionatatimewhenjudicialauthoritywasyetinitsinfancy，andwhenCourtsofJusticecouldnotasyetcompletelyandregularlycommandtheaidofsovereignpower。Gradually，asthepublicforce，thearmoftheState，wasmoreandmoreplacedatthedisposaloftribunals，theywereablemoreandmoretodispensewithextrajudicialassistance。InthestateofTeutoniclawrepresentedbytheFrankishCode，wefindaspecificclassofcasestriedthroughoutjudiciallyinourmodernsenseofthewordfromtheinitialstagetothejudgment；butthejudgmentisnotbyitsownforceoperative。Ifthedefendanthasexpresslypromisedtoobeyit，theCountorroyaldeputy，onbeingproperlysummoned，willexecuteit；butifnosuchpromisehasbeenmade，theplaintiffhasnoremedyexceptanapplicationtotheKinginperson。Nolongtime，however，aftertheFrankshavebeensettledwithintheEmpire，wefindthatmotherstephasbeentakentowardstheadministrationofjusticeonmodernprinciples，andnowtheroyaldeputywillexecutethejudgmenteventhoughtherehasbeennopromisetosubmittoit。AtthispointDistressiswhollytakenoutofthehandsofprivatelitigantsandextrajudicialseizurebecomesjudicialseizure。ThechangeisobviouslyaresultofthegrowingvigourofCourts，greatlydueinourowncountrytothedevelopmentofroyaljusticeattheexpenseofpopularjustice。StillEnglishjudicialproceedingslongsavouredoftheoldpractices。EverystudentofourancientEnglishformsofproceedingwillrecollectonwhatsmallapparentprovocationtheKingconstantlytookthelandsofthedefendantintohishandsorseizedhisgoods，simplytocompelorperfecthissubmissiontotheroyaljurisdiction。ItseemsprobablethatDistresswasgraduallylostinandabsorbedbyAttachmentandDistringas。ThetheoryofAttachmentnowisthatitisthetakingofpropertyintotheactualorconstructivepossessionofthejudicialpower，andthelatercourseofchangeunderwhichithasfadedintoanoccasionalandexceptionalproceeding，requiringtobejustifiedbyspecialreasons，correspondswiththegrowingconfidenceofCourtsofJusticeintheirpossessionofirresistiblepowerconfidedtothembythesovereign。Asregardsthatfragmentoftheprimitiveinstitutionwhichremainsinourlaw，IimaginethatDistresswouldatmosthavebecomeameresurvival，confinedperhapstotheimpoundingofstraycattle，ifseveralstatutoryinnovationshadnotturneditintoaconvenientextra-judicialremedyforlandlords，bygivingthedistrainorapowerofsalewhichinoldEnglishlawwaslimitedtoafewveryspecialdemands。ThemoderntheoryofDistressisthatalandlordisallowedtodistrainbecausebythenatureofthecaseheisalwayscompelledtogivehistenantcredit，andthathecandistrainwithoutnoticebecauseeverymanissupposedtoknowwhenhisrentisdue。Butthistheory，thoughitexplainsthecontinuanceofDistresstoourday，doesnotatallfitinwiththemostancientideasonthesubject，andcouldnotindeedbeeasilymadetosquarewiththepracticeofdistraintevenatadatesocomparativelylateasthatatwhichBractonwrote。HowaccidentalistheassociationofDistresswiththepowersoflandlordsmaybeseenfromthefactthat，thoughthereareplentifultracesoftheinstitutionintheancientScottishlaw，thesamepracticalresultswhichtheEnglishsystemproducesbyallowinglandlordstodistrainforrentarechieflyattainedinScotlandbyapplyingtolandlordandtenanttheRomanisedLawofHypothek。
　　ThecomparisonofthevariousTeutonicbodiesoflawsuggeststhentomymindasregardsthosesystems，thefollowingconclusionsrespectingthehistoricaldevelopmentoftheremedieswhichgrewoutofthesavagepracticeofviolentlyseizingpropertyinredressforsupposedwrong。Twoalternativeexpedientswereadoptedbynascentlaw。Oneoftheseconsistedintoleratingdistraintuptoacertainpoint；itwasconnivedatsofarasitservedtocompelthesubmissionofdefendantstothejurisdictionofCourts，butinallothercasesitwastreatedaswilfulbreachofthepeace。Theotherwastheincorporationofdistraintwitharegularprocedure。Thecomplainantmustobserveagreatnumberofformsathisperil；butifheobservesthemhecandistrainintheend。Inastillmoreadvancedconditionoflegalideas，thetribunalstaketheseizureoflandorgoodsintotheirownhands，usingitfreelytocoercedefendantsintosubmission。Finally，CourtsofJusticeresorttocoercionbeforejudgmentonlyontherarestoccasions，sureastheyatlastareoftheeffectivenessoftheirprocess，andofthepowerwhichtheyholdindepositfromtheSovereignCommonwealth。ThePrimitiveFormsofLegalRemedies
　　Ipassfromtheearlylawofprocedureintheromanand
　　Teutonicsocietiestothecorrespondingbranchofanother。
　　ancientlegalsystemwhichhasbeenonlyjustrevealedtous，and
　　which，sofarasitsexistencewassuspected，wassupposeduntil
　　latelytobeseparatedbypeculiarlysharpdistinctionsfromall
　　Germanicbodiesofusage。
　　RathermorethanhalfoftheSenchusMoristakenupwiththe
　　LawofDistress。TheSenchusMor，asItoldyou，pretendstobea
　　CodeofIrishlaw，andindeedtobethatveryCodewhichwas
　　preparedundertheinfluenceofSt。Patrickupontheintroduction
　　ofChristianityintoIreland。Iaddedthatinthepresentstate
　　ofourknowledge，notheorycanbeveryconfidentlyadvancedas
　　tothedateofthisBrehoncompendium。Itmaybethatsomesuch
　　revisionofthepre-Christianlawdidtakeplace；itmaybethat
　　theBrehonlawyersonlyconjecturedthatitmusthavetaken
　　place；itmaybethatatractofunusualdimensionsand
　　proportionatelyvaluedbytheBrehonlaw-schoolwhichhappenedto
　　possessit，camegraduallytobeassociatedwithanameheldin
　　pre-eminenthonourorpre-eminentlysacred，aprocessofwhich
　　therearebelievedtobeseveralexamplesinthehistoryof
　　easternjurisprudence，Thesedoubts，however，astothetruedate
　　oftheSenchusMordonottakeawayfromthesignificanceand
　　instructivenessofthefactthatinavolumeofgreatantiquity，
　　ofundoubtedgenuineness，andevidentlythoughtbyitspossessors
　　tocontainallthatwasimportantinthelaw，theLawof
　　Distress，nowanextremelysubordinatebranchofourlegal
　　system，occupiesaspacesoextraordinarilylarge。
　　IborrowfromtheEditoroftheFirstVolumeof’AncientLaws
　　ofIreland，’thefollowingepitomeoftheoldIrishlawof
　　distressaslaiddownintheSenchusMor：——
　　’Theplaintifforcreditor，havingfirstgiventheproper
　　notice，proceeded，inthecaseofadefendantordebtor，notof
　　chieftaingrade，todistrain。Ifthedefendantordebtorwerea
　　personofchieftaingrade，itwasnecessarynotonlytogive
　　notice，butalsoto“fastuponhim。“Thefastinguponhim
　　consistedingoingtohisresidenceandwaitingtherefora
　　certaintimewithoutfood。Iftheplaintiffdidnotwithina
　　certaintimereceivesatisfactionforhisclaim，orapledge
　　therefor，heforthwith，accompaniedbyalaw-agent，witnesses，
　　andothers，seizedhisdistress。Thedistress，whenseized，was
　　incertaincasesliabletoaStay，whichwasaperiodvarying。
　　accordingtofixedrules，duringwhichthedebtorreceivedback
　　thedistress，andretaineditinhisownkeeping，thecreditor
　　havingalienuponit。Suchadistressisa“distresswithtime；“
　　butundercertaincircumstancesandinparticularcasesan
　　“immediatedistress“wasmade，thepeculiarityofwhichwasthat
　　duringthefixedperiodoftheStaythedistresswasnotallowed
　　toremaininthedebtor’spossession，butinthatofthe
　　creditor，orinoneoftherecognisedgreensorpounds。
　　’IfthedebtwasnotpaidbytheendoftheStay，the
　　creditortookawaythedistress，andputitinapound。Hethen
　　servednoticeofthedistressonthedebtorwhomhehad
　　distrained，lettinghimknowwherewhatwasdistrainedwas
　　impounded。Thedistressremainedinthepoundacertainperiod，
　　fixedaccordingtoitsnaturedithim，translated“delayin
　　pound，“isthenameofthisperiod。Attheendofthedelayin
　　pound，theForfeitingTimebegantorun，duringwhichthe
　　distressbecameforfeitedattherateofthree“seds“perday，
　　untilentirelyforfeited。Iftheentirevalueofthedistress
　　thusforfeitedwasexactlyequaltotheoriginaldebtandthe
　　subsequentexpenses，thedebtwasliquidated；ifitwaslessthan
　　this，aseconddistresswastakenforthedifference；and，if
　　more，theoverpluswasreturned。Allthisproceedingwasmanaged
　　bythepartyhimself，orhislaw-agent，withtheseveral
　　witnessesofthevarioussteps，andothernecessaryparties。
　　’Butif，insteadofallowinghiscattletogotopound，the
　　debtorgaveasufficientpledge，e。g。，hisson，orsomearticle
　　ofvalue，tothecreditor，thathewouldwithinacertaintime
　　trytherighttothedistressbylaw，thecreditorwasboundto
　　receivesuchpledge。Ifhedidnotgotolaw，ashesoundertook，
　　thepledgebecameforfeitedfortheoriginaldebt。Atanytime，
　　uptotheendofthe“dithim，“thedebtorcouldrecoverhis
　　cattlebypayingthedebtandsuchexpensesashadbeenincurred。
　　But，ifheneglectedtoredeemthemuntilthe“dithim“had
　　expired，thenhecouldonlyredeemsuchaswerestill
　　unforfeited。’
　　TheveryexistenceinancientIrelandofthelawthus
　　summarisedisalmostenoughbyitselftodestroythosereckless
　　theoriesofracewhichassertanoriginal，inherentdifferenceof
　　ideaandusagebetweenTeutonandCelt。TheIrishsystemof
　　Distressisobviously，inallessentialfeatures，theGermanic
　　system。Itwears，onitsface，averystronggeneralresemblance
　　tothecorrespondingbranchofOurCommonLaw；andIhaveseen
　　someveryingeniousattemptstoaccountforthedifferences
　　betweenthetwobysuggestionsthattheprimitivecontourofthe
　　EnglishlawofDistresshasbeenimpaired。Theobjectofsuch
　　speculationsistoargueforthedirectderivationoftheEnglish
　　setofrulesfromtheCeltic；butitdoesnotappeartothe
　　necessarytoresorttoasuppositionwhichhasgreatandspecial
　　difficultiesofitsown。ThevirtualidentityoftheIrishlawof
　　DistresswiththeTeutoniclawisbestbroughtoutbycomparing
　　itwiththeTeutonicsystemsofprocedurecollectively。Thusthe
　　DistressoftheSenchusMorisnot，liketheDistressofthe
　　EnglishCommonLaw，aremedyconfinedinthemaintodemandsof
　　thelordonhistenants；asintheSalicandotherContinental
　　GermanicCodes，itextendstobreachesofcontract，andindeed，
　　sofarastheBrehonlawisalreadyknown，itwouldappeartobe
　　theuniversalmethodofprosecutingclaimsofallkinds。The
　　Noticeagaintothepersonwhosegoodsaretobedistrainedwhich
　　itstrenuouslyinsistsupon，thoughnotfoundinthesurviving
　　EnglishCommonlaw，fillsanimportantplace，asIstated，in
　　otherTeutoniccollectionsofrules。Sotootheattendanceof
　　witnessesisrequiredbytheContinentalCodes；and，thoughthe
　　presenceoftheBrehonlawagentispeculiartotheIrishsystem
　　andverycharacteristicofit，certainpersonshavingmuchthe
　　samedutiesarerequiredbysomeoftheTeutonicsystemstobe
　　presentduringtheprocessofdistraint。Further，theStayof
　　proceedings，whichhasbeencomparedtoanAttachment，seemsto
　　mebetterexplainedbycertainprovisionsofthe’Leges
　　Barbarorum。’Undersomeofthemwhenaperson’spropertyisabout
　　tobeseizedhemakesamimicresistance；undertheSaliclaw，he
　　protestsagainsttheinjusticeoftheattempt；underthe
　　Ripuarianlaw，hegoesthroughtheexpressiveformalityof
　　standingathisdoorwithadrawnsword。Thereupon，theseizure
　　isinterruptedandanopportunityisgivenforenquiringintothe
　　regularityoftheproceedingsand，probablyalso，intothe
　　justiceoftheclaim。TheLienorchargeuponthedistrained
　　property，whichtheIrishlawconfersonthecreditorduringthe
　　currencyoftheStay，isnotfoundintheContinentalTeutonic
　　lawinthisexactshape；but，ataparticularstageoftheSalic
　　proceedings，thecreditorhasthepowerofinterdictingthe
　　debtorfromsellingormortgaginganypartofhispropertyuntil