lect09-第6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！








irresistible　power　confided　to　them　by　the　sovereign。　As　regards






that　fragment　of　the　primitive　institution　which　remains　in　our






law；　I　imagine　that　Distress　would　at　most　have　become　a　mere






survival；　confined　perhaps　to　the　impounding　of　stray　cattle；　if






several　statutory　innovations　had　not　turned　it　into　a　convenient






extra…judicial　remedy　for　landlords；　by　giving　the　distrainor　a






power　of　sale　which　in　old　English　law　was　limited　to　a　few　very






special　demands。　The　modern　theory　of　Distress　is　that　a　landlord






is　allowed　to　distrain　because　by　the　nature　of　the　case　he　is






always　compelled　to　give　his　tenant　credit；　and　that　he　can






distrain　without　notice　because　every　man　is　supposed　to　know






when　his　rent　is　due。　But　this　theory；　though　it　explains　the






continuance　of　Distress　to　our　day；　does　not　at　all　fit　in　with






the　most　ancient　ideas　on　the　subject；　and　could　not　indeed　be






easily　made　to　square　with　the　practice　of　distraint　even　at　a






date　so　comparatively　late　as　that　at　which　Bracton　wrote。　How






accidental　is　the　association　of　Distress　with　the　powers　of






landlords　may　be　seen　from　the　fact　that；　though　there　are






plentiful　traces　of　the　institution　in　the　ancient　Scottish　law；






the　same　practical　results　which　the　English　system　produces　by






allowing　landlords　to　distrain　for　rent　are　chiefly　attained　in






Scotland　by　applying　to　landlord　and　tenant　the　Romanised　Law　of






Hypothek。






　　　　The　comparison　of　the　various　Teutonic　bodies　of　law　suggests






then　to　my　mind　as　regards　those　systems；　the　following






conclusions　respecting　the　historical　development　of　the　remedies






which　grew　out　of　the　savage　practice　of　violently　seizing






property　in　redress　for　supposed　wrong。　Two　alternative






expedients　were　adopted　by　nascent　law。　One　of　these　consisted　in






tolerating　distraint　up　to　a　certain　point；　it　was　connived　at　so






far　as　it　served　to　compel　the　submission　of　defendants　to　the






jurisdiction　of　Courts；　but　in　all　other　cases　it　was　treated　as






wilful　breach　of　the　peace。　The　other　was　the　incorporation　of






distraint　with　a　regular　procedure。　The　complainant　must　observe






a　great　number　of　forms　at　his　peril；　but　if　he　observes　them　he






can　distrain　in　the　end。　In　a　still　more　advanced　condition　of






legal　ideas；　the　tribunals　take　the　seizure　of　land　or　goods　into






their　own　hands；　using　it　freely　to　coerce　defendants　into






submission。　Finally；　Courts　of　Justice　resort　to　coercion　before






judgment　only　on　the　rarest　occasions；　sure　as　they　at　last　are






of　the　effectiveness　of　their　process；　and　of　the　power　which






they　hold　in　deposit　from　the　Sovereign　Commonwealth。