lect10-第3节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！




debt　and　the　expenses　of　custody　come　up　to　its　full　value；　has


its　place　among　the　latest　improvements　in　jurisprudence。


　　　　Whatever；　then；　be　the　truth　as　to　the　Ireland　of　the　golden


age；　these　characteristics　of　the　Irish　Law　of　Distress　leave　on


my　mind　a　very　distinct　impression　that　it　was　brought　to　the


shape　in　which　we　find　it　amid　a　society　in　which　the　action　of


Courts　of　Justice　was　feeble　and　intermittent。　It　says　much　for


the　spirit　of　equity　and　reasonableness　which　animated　the　Brehon


lawyers　who　gave　it　its　form；　and　much　also　for　their　ingenuity；


but　suggests　that　they　relied　little　on　the　assistance　of　Courts


and　directed　their　efforts　to　making　the　most　of　a　remedy　which


was　almost　wholly　extrajudicial。　The　comparison　of　the　Teutonic


laws　shows　that　they　had　a　basis　of　Aryan　custom　to　work　upon；


but；　while　in　other　communities　the　superstructure　on　this


foundation　was　the　work　of　Courts　ever　feeling　themselves


stronger；　in　Ireland　it　seems　to　have　been　the　work　of　lawyers


dependent　in　the　main　for　the　usefulness　of　their　labours　on


popular　respect　for　their　order。　I　do　not　affect　to　say　how　the


ancient　law　of　Ireland　is　to　be　fitted　to　the　ancient　history。　It


may　be　that　the　picture　of　judicial　organisation　found　in　some


law…tracts　is；　like　the　description　of　private　law　found　in


others；　rather　a　representation　of　what　ought　to　be　than　of　what


is　or　has　been。　It　may　be　also　that　the　law　laid　down　in　the


Senchus　Mor　is　of　much　later　date　than　the　compilers　of　that


tract　pretend；　and　that　therefore　it　received　its　shape　in　times


of　disturbance　and　confusion。　But　I　cannot　believe　that　it　ever


synchronised　with　a　period　of　judicial　activity　and　efficiency。


　　　　From　what　I　have　said　I　think　you　will　have　collected　the


chief　points　of　difference　between　the　Irish　Law　of　Distress；　as


laid　down　in　the　Senchus　Mor；　and　the　english　Common　Law　of


Distress；　as　declared　by　the　earliest　authorities　which　our


Courts　recognise。　Both　had　the　same　origin；　but　the　Irish


distraint　was　an　universal；　highly　developed　proceed　ing　employed


in　enforcing　all　kinds　of　demands；　while　the　corresponding


English　remedy；　though　much　less　carefully　guarded　by　express


rules；　was　confined　to　a　very　limited　and　special　class　of　cases。


I　have　a　melancholy　reason　for　calling　your　attention　to　the


contrast。　Edmund　Spenser　has　spoken　of　it；　in　his　'View　of　the


State　of　Ireland；'　and　here　is　the　passage：　


　　　　'There　are　one　or　two　statutes　which　make　the　wrongful


distraining　of　any　man's　goods　against　the　forme　of　Common　Law　to


be　fellony。　The　which　statutes　seeme　surely　to　have　been　at　first


meant　for　the　good　of　the　realme；　and　for　restrayning　of　a　foul


abuse；　which　then　reigned　commonly　among　that　people；　and　yet　is


not　altogether　laide；　that；　when　anyone　was　indebted　to　another；


he　would　first　demand　his　debt；　and；　if　he　were　not　paid；　he


would　straight　go　and　take　a　distress　of　his　goods　and　cattell；


where　he　could　find　them　to　the　value；　which　he　would　keep　till


he　were　satisfied；　and　this　the　simple　churl　（as　they　call　him）


doth　commonly　use　to　doe　yet　through　ignorance　of　his　misdoing；


or　evil　use　that　hath　long　settled　among　them。　But　this；　though


it　be　sure　most　unlawful；　yet　surely　me　seems　it　is　too　hard　to


make　it　death；　since　there　is　no　purpose　in　the　party　to　steal


the　other's　goods；　or　to　conceal　the　distress；　but　he　doeth　it


openly　for　the　most　part　before　witnesses。　And　again　the　same


statutes　are　so　slackly　penned　（besides　there　is　one　so


unsensibly　contryved　that　it　scarcely　carryeth　any　reason　in　it）


that　they　are　often　and　very　easily　wrested　to　the　fraude　of　the


subject；　as　if　one　going　to　distrayne　upon　his　own　land　or


tenement；　where　lawfully　he　may；　yet　if　in　doing　thereof　he


transgresse　the　least　point　of　the　Common　Law；　he　straight


committeth　fellony。　Or　if　one　by　any　other　occasion　take　any


thing　from　another；　as　boyes　sometimes　cap　one　another；　the　same


is　straight　fellony。　This　is　a　very　hard　law。


　　　　Spenser　goes　on；　in　a　passage　which　I　need　not　quote　in　full；


to　account　for　these　statutes　by　a　special　provision　in　the


charters　of　most　of　the　Anglo…Irish　corporate　towns。　The　English


law　had　not　currency；　he　tells　us；　beyond　the　walls；　and　the


burgesses　had　the　power　conferred　on　them　of　distraining　the


goods　of　any　Irishman　staying　in　the　town　or　passing　through　it；


for　any　debt　whatsoever。　He　suggests　that　the　Irish　population


outside　was　led　in　this　way　to　suppose　it　lawful　to　distrain　the


property　of　the　townspeople。　The　explanation；　if　true；　would　be


sad　enough；　but　we　know　that　it　cannot　convey　the　whole　truth；


and　the　real　story　is　still　sadder。　The　Irish　used　the　remedy　of


distress　because　they　knew　no　other　remedy；　and　the　English　made


it　a　capital　felony　in　an　Irishman　to　follow　the　only　law　with


which　he　was　acquainted。　Nay；　those　very　subtleties　of　old


English　law　which；　as　Blackstone　says；　made　the　taking　of


distress　'a　hazardous　sort　of　proceeding'　to　the　civil


distrainor；　might　bring　an　Irishman　to　the　gallows；　if　in


conscientiously　attempting　to　carry　out　the　foreign　law　he　fell


into　the　smallest　mistake。　It　is　some　small　consolation　to　be


able；　as　one　result　of　the　inquiries　we　have　been　prosecuting；　to


put　aside　as　worthless　the　easy　justification　of　those　who　pass


over　these　cruelties　as　part　of　the　inevitable　struggle　between


men　of　different　races。　Both　the　Irish　law；　which　it　was　a


capital　crime　to　obey；　and　the　English　law；　which　it　was　a


capital　crime　to　blunder　in　obeying；　were　undoubtedly　descended


from　the　same　body　of　usage　once　universally　practised　by　the


forefathers　of　both　Saxon　and　Celt。


　　　　Among　the　writers　who　have　recognised　the　strong　affinities


connecting　the　English　and　Irish　Law　of　Distress；　I　find　it


difficult　to　distinguish　between　those　who　believe　in　the　direct


derivation　of　the　English　law　from　pre…existing　Celtic　customs


common　to　Britain　and　Ireland；　and　those　who　see　a　sufficient


explanation　of　the　resemblances　between　the　two　sets　of　rules　in


their　common　parentage。　I　am　not　at　all　prepared　to　deny　that


recent　researches；　and　particularly　those　into　old　French


customary　law；　render　it　easier　to　believe　than　it　once　was　that


portions　of　primitive　or　aboriginal　custom　survive　the　most


desolating　conquests。　But　I　need　scarcely　say　that　the　hypothesis


of　the　direct　descent　of　any　considerable　branch　of　English　law


from　British　usage　is　beset　by　extraordinary　difficulties；　of


which　not　the　least　is　the　curiously　strong　case　which　may　also


be　made　out　for　the　purely　Roman　origin　of　a　good　many


institutions　and　rules　which　we　are　used　to　consider　purely


English　and　Germanic。　On　this　last　point　a　very　interesting


little　volume；　which　has　attracted　too　little　notice；　Mr　Coote's


'Neglected　Fact　in　English　History；'　may　be　read　with　advantage；


and　should　be　compared　with　the　reply　to　its　arguments；　on　the


whole　a　successful　one；　which　Mr。　Freeman　published　in


'Macmillan's　Magazine；　for　July；　1870。　The　true　rival　of　all


these　theories　of　the　derivation　of　one　body　of　custom　from


another　is；　of　course；　the　theory　of　the　common　descent　of　all


from　an　original　basis　of　usage　which　we　must；　provisionally　at


all　events；　call　Aryan。　Confining　ourselves　to　the　practice　which


we　have　been　investigating；　the　remedy　for　supposed　wrong　by


distress；　if　there　could　be　a　doubt　of　its　being　a　legacy　from


the　primitive　Aryan　usages；　it　would　be　removed　by　the　remarkable


detail　which　connects　the　Irish　with　the　Hindoo　law。　The　Irish


rules　of　distraint　very　strongly　resemble　the　English　rules；　less


strongly　resemble　the　Continental　Teutonic　rules；　but　they


include　one　rule　not　found　in　any　Teutonic　Code；　almost


unintelligible　in　the　Irish　system；　but　known　to　govern　conduct


even　at　this　hour　all　over　the　East；　where　its　meaning　is


perfectly　clear。　This　is　the　rule　that　a　creditor　who　requires


payment　from　a　debtor　of　higher　rank　than　himself　shall　'fast


upon　him。'　What　possible　explanation　will　cover　all　the　fact


except　that　the　primitive　Aryans　bequeathed　the　remedy　of


distress　to　the　communities　which　sprang　from　them；　and　that


varieties　of　detail　have　been　produced　by　what　Dr。　Sullivan；　in


his　Introduction；　has　happily　called　dynamical　influences？


　　　　Here　is　the　leading　provision　of　the　Senchus　Mor　on　the


subject　（i。　113）：　


　　　　'Notice　precedes　every　distress　in　the　case　of　the　inferior


grades　except　it　be　by　persons　of　distinction　or　upon　persons　of


distinction。　Fasting　precedes　distress　in　their　case。　He　who　does


not　give　a　pledge　to　fasting　is　an　evader　of　all；　he　who


disregards　all　things　shall　not　be　paid　by　Go