thedebthasbeensatisfied。Ontheotherhand,severalfeatures
oftheIrishsystem,whicharewhollyabsentfromtheContinental
Teutonicprocedure,orveryfaintlymarkedinit,belong
conspicuouslytotheEnglishlaw。Amongthesemaybeplacedthe
impounding,andthe’takinginwithernam,’butthegreat。
Resemblanceofall,andthecommonpointofdissimilarityfrom
themostancientoftheLegesBarbarorum,liesinthefactthat
theIrishprocedure,liketheEnglish,requiresneither
assistancenorpermissionfromanyCourtofJustice。Inallthe
TeutonicbodiesofcustomexcepttheEnglishandtheLombardic,
evenwhenthegreatestlatitudeofseizureisallowedto
litigantsoutofCourt,some。judicialpersonorbodymustbe
appliedtobeforetheyproceedtoextremities。Withus,however,
theentireseizureiscompletedbeforeauthorityiscalledin;
andtheIrishlawhasexactlythesamepeculiarity。Notonlyso,
buttheIrishlawcorrespondstotheEnglishlawofDistressina
veryadvancedstageofdevelopment。Itdoesnotemploythe
seizureofcattlemerelyasamethodofextortingsatisfaction。
Itprovides,asyouhaveseen,fortheirforfeitureindischarge
oftheDemandforwhichtheyweretaken;andthusis
distinguishedbyanimprovementwhichwasonlyaddedtothe
Englishlawbystatuteafterthelapseofseveralcenturies。
ThetruedifficultyinestimatingtheplaceofthisIrish
procedureinthehistoricaldevelopmentoflawarisesfromdoubts
astothepartreallyplayedbythelegalproceedinginwhichit
terminated。TheEnglishprocessofdistress,whereveritwasfelt
tobeunjust,ledupto,andendedin,theactionofreplevin,
andthecourt,whichultimatelytriedtheaction,practically
acquireditsjurisdictionthroughtheinterpositionofthe
Sheriffinrestoringthecattleuponsecuritygiven。Nosuch
interferencewithahighhandasthatoftheSheriffappearsto
becontemplatedbytheIrishlaw。buttheBrehonlawyerwhoought
properlytoaccompanythedistrainorisexpresslystatedbythe
SenchusMortoaidhim’untilthedecisionofaCourt。’’Ancient
LawsofIreland,’i。85。Whatwastheproceedingthusreferred
to?WhatauthorityhadtheIrishCourtsatanytimeatwhichthe
Brehonlawwasheldinrespect?WhatweretheseCourts?Towhat
extentdidtheycommandthepublicforceofthesovereignState?
wasthereanysovereignpoweratanytimeestablishedinanypart
ofIrelandwhichcouldgiveoperativejurisdictiontoCourtsof
Justiceandoperativeforcetothelaw?Allthesequestions——of
whichthelastareintruththegreatproblemsofancientIrish
history——mustinsomedegreebeansweredbeforewecanhave
anything,likeaconfidentopinionontheactualworkingofthe
LawofDistresssetforthatsuchlengthintheSenchusMor。
ThelearnedEditorsofthevariousIntroductionsprefixedto
theofficialpublicationsofAncientIrishLawareplainlyof
opinionthatsuchjurisdictionasanyIrishCourtspossessedwas,
tousethetechnicalphrase,voluntary。TheLawofDistress,in
thisview,wasclearlyenoughconceivedbytheBrehonlawyer,but
itdependedforthepracticalobediencewhichitobtainedonthe
aidofpublicopinionandofpopularrespectforaprofessional
Caste。Itsobjectwastoforcedisputantstosubmittowhatwas
ratheranarbitrationthananaction,beforeaBrehonselectedby
themselves,oratmostbeforesomerecognisedtribunaladvisedby
aBrehon。Atthesametime,itwouldseemthatthereareancient
Irishtractsorfragmentsoftractsinexistencewhichdescribe
theancientIrishashavinghadamostelaboratepublic
organisation,judicialaswellaslegislative。DrSullivan,in
hisIntroduction,admitsthattheinformationwhichhascomedown
tousonthesesubjectsisveryfragmentary,andsoobscurethat
itwillbeimpossibletogiveasatisfactoryaccountofthem
untilthewholeofthelaw-fragmentsinIrishMSS。arepublished
oratleastmadeaccessibletoscholars;buthenevertheless
believesinthehistoricalrealityofthisorganisation,andhe
speaksIntroduction,pp。cclii。cclxii。oftheIrishCourtsin
languageofextremelymoderntinge。EnoughisknownofIrish
historytomakeitverydifficulttounderstandwhenthis
elaboratejudicialsystemcanhaveexisted;butaplaceisfound
foritbyattributingittoaperiodnotonlybeforethe
Anglo-NormaninvasionsofIreland,butbeforetheVikingdescents
ontheIrishcoasts。Thesafestcourseiscertainlytoreserve
one’sopiniononthesubjectuntiltheauthoritiesforDr
Sullivan’sstatementshavebeenmuchmorecriticallyexamined
thantheyhavebeen;butIamboundtosaythattheyarenotso
inherentlyimprobable,norareDrSullivan’sopinionssohardto
reconcilewiththeviewsoftheEditorsofthetranslations,as
personsunacquaintedwithlegalhistorymightsuppose。Thereare
analogiestomanyofthetribunalsdescribedamongthe
rudimentaryinstitutionsofseveralcommunities。Suchtribunals
mightfurtherbehighlydevelopedandyettheirjurisdiction
mightbeonlyvoluntary。Sohmappearstometohaveprovedthat
theFrankishPopularCourtsdidnotexecutetheirowndecrees;if
thedefendanthadpromisedtosubmittoanaward,thelocal
deputyoftheKingmightberequiredtoenforceit,but,ifthere
hadbeennosuchpromise,theplaintiffwasforcedtopetition
theKinginperson。Thereismuchreasoninfactforthinking
that,intheearliesttimesandbeforethefulldevelopmentof
thatkinglyauthoritywhichhaslentsomuchvigourtothearmof
thelawinmostAryancommunities,butwhichwasvirtuallydenied
totheIrish,CourtsofJusticeexistedlessforthepurposeof
doingrightuniversallythanforthepurposeofsupplyingan
alternativetotheviolentredressofwrong。Eventhenifwe
supposethattheIrelandwhichissaidtohaveenjoyedan
elaboratejudicialorganizationwasgreatlyruderandwilderthan
Irishpatriotswouldprobablyallowittohavebeen,thereisno
suchinconsistencybetweentheprevalenceofdisorderandthe
frequencyoflitigationaswouldmakethemexcludeoneanother。
TheNorseliterature,whichMrDasenthaspopularisedamongus,
showsthatperpetualfightingandperpetuallitigationmaygoon
sidebyside,andthatahighlytechnicalproceduremaybe
scrupulouslyfollowedatatimewhenhomicideisaneveryday
occurrence。ThefactseemstobethatcontentioninCourttakes
theplaceofcontentioninarms,butonlygraduallytakesits
place;anditisatenabletheorythatmanyofthestrange
peculiaritiesofancientlaw,thetechnicalsnares,traps,and
pitfallswithwhichitabounds,reallyrepresentandcarryonthe
feints,stratagems,andambuscadesofactualarmedstrifebetween
manandman,betweentribeandtribe。Eveninourownday,whena
wildprovinceisannexedtotheBritishIndianEmpire,thereisa
mostcuriousandinstructiverushofsuitorstotheCourtswhich
areimmediatelyestablished。Thearmofthelawsummarily
suppressesviolence,andthemenwhocannolongerfightgoto
lawinstead,innumberswhichsometimesmakeIndianofficials
believethattheremustbesomethingmaleficentinthelawand
procedurewhichtemptmenintoCourtwhoneversawaCourt
before。Thesimpleexplanationisthatthesamenaturalimpulse
isgratifiedinanewway;hastyappealstoajudgesucceed
hurriedquarrels,andhereditarylaw-suitstaketheplaceof
ancestralblood-feuds。Ifthetransitionfromonestateof
societytoanotherinmodernIndiawerenotsuddenbutgradual
andslow,asituniversallywasintheoldAryanworld,weshould
seethebattlewithtechnicalitiesgoingoninCourtatthesame
timethatthebattlewaswagedoutofCourtwithswordand
matchlock。
When,however,weareconsideringtheplaceinlegalhistory
oftheoldIrishLawofDistress,thepointtowhichwehaveto
attendisnotsomuchthemereexistenceofCourtsofJusticeas
theeffectivenessoftheirprocess,orinotherwordsthedegree
inwhichtheycommandthepublicforceoftheCommonwealth。I
thinkIhaveshownittobeprobablethat,inproportionas
Courtsgrowstronger,theyfirsttakeundertheircontrolthe
barbarouspracticeofmakingreprisalsonawrongdoerbyseizing
hisproperty,andultimatelytheyabsorbitintotheirown
procedure。Now,theIrishLawofDistressbelongsinonerespect
toaveryearlystageinthiscourseofdevelopment,sinceitis
evenmorecompletelyextrajudicialthanisthatfragmentofthe
primitivebarbarousremedywhichhassurvivedamongourselves。On
theotherhand,thereareseveralparticularsinwhichitisnot
morebutdistinctlylessarchaicthantheEnglishCommonlaw。The
’Notice’tothedefendant,forwhichitprovides——the’Stay,’
ortemporaryretentionofthegoodsbytheowner,subjecttoa
lien——thewitnesseswhohavetobepresent,andtheskilled
legaladviserwhohastoattendthroughouttheproceedings——
belongtoarangeofideasgreatlymoreadvancedthanthatunder
whichalltheseprecautionsaredispensedwith。Evenstronger
evidenceofmaturityisfurnishedbythealmostinconceivable
multitudeofrulesanddistinctionswhichtheSenchusMorapplies
toeverypartoftheproceedings;andourownexperienceshows
thatthemostremarkablefeatureoftheoldIrishlaw,the
forfeitureofthepropertytakenindistresswhentheoriginal
debtandtheexpensesofcustodycomeuptoitsfullvalue,has
itsplaceamongthelatestimprovementsinjurisprudence。
Whatever,then,bethetruthastotheIrelandofthegolden
age,thesecharacteristicsoftheIrishLawofDistressleaveon
mymindaverydistinctimpressionthatitwasbroughttothe
shapeinwhichwefinditamidasocietyinwhichtheactionof
CourtsofJusticewasfeebleandintermittent。Itsaysmuchfor
thespiritofequityandreasonablenesswhichanimatedtheBrehon
lawyerswhogaveititsform,andmuchalsofortheiringenuity,
butsuggeststhattheyreliedlittleontheassistanceofCourts
anddirectedtheireffortstomakingthemostofaremedywhich
wasalmostwhollyextrajudicial。ThecomparisonoftheTeutonic
lawsshowsthattheyhadabasisofAryancustomtoworkupon;
but,whileinothercommunitiesthesuperstructureonthis
foundationwastheworkofCourtseverfeelingthemselves
stronger,inIrelanditseemstohavebeentheworkoflawyers
dependentinthemainfortheusefulnessoftheirlabourson
popularrespectfortheirorder。Idonotaffecttosayhowthe
ancientlawofIrelandistobefittedtotheancienthistory。It
maybethatthepictureofjudicialorganisationfoundinsome
law-tractsis,likethedescriptionofprivatelawfoundin
others,ratherarepresentationofwhatoughttobethanofwhat
isorhasbeen。Itmaybealsothatthelawlaiddowninthe
SenchusMorisofmuchlaterdatethanthecompilersofthat
tractpretend,andthatthereforeitreceiveditsshapeintimes
ofdisturbanceandconfusion。ButIcannotbelievethatitever
synchronisedwithaperiodofjudicialactivityandefficiency。
FromwhatIhavesaidIthinkyouwillhavecollectedthe
chiefpointsofdifferencebetweentheIrishLawofDistress,as
laiddownintheSenchusMor,andtheenglishCommonLawof
Distress,asdeclaredbytheearliestauthoritieswhichour
Courtsrecognise。Bothhadthesameorigin,buttheIrish
distraintwasanuniversal,highlydevelopedproceedingemployed
inenforcingallkindsofdemands,whilethecorresponding
Englishremedy,thoughmuchlesscarefullyguardedbyexpress
rules,wasconfinedtoaverylimitedandspecialclassofcases。
Ihaveamelancholyreasonforcallingyourattentiontothe
contrast。EdmundSpenserhasspokenofit,inhis’Viewofthe