lect10- 第3部分

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　God　or　man。'


　　　　Mr。　Whitley　Stokes　was　the　first；　I　believe；　to　point　out


that　the　institution　here　referred　to　was　identical　with　a


practice　diffused　over　the　whole　East；　and　called　by　the　Hindoos


'sitting　dharna。'　I　will　presently　read　you　a　passage　in　which


the　proceeding　is　described　as　it　was　found　in　India　before　the


British　government；　which　has　always　regarded　it　as　an　abuse；　had


gone　far　in　its　efforts　to　suppress　it。　But　perhaps　the　most


striking　examples　of　the　ancient　custom　are　to　be　found　at　this


day　in　Persia；　where　（I　am　told）　a　man　intending　to　enforce


payment　of　a　demand　by　fasting　begins　by　sowing　some　barley　at


his　debtor's　door　and　sitting　down　in　the　middle。　The　symbolism


is　plain　enough。　The　creditor　means　that　he　will　stay　where　he　is


without　food；　either　until　he　is　paid　or　until　the　barley…seed


grows　up　and　gives　him　bread　to　eat。


　　　　The　corresponding　Indian　practice　is　known；　I　before　stated；


as　'sitting　dharna'　　dharna；　according　to　the　better　opinion；


being　exactly　equivalent　to　the　Roman　'capio；'　and　meaning


'detention'　or　'arrest。'　Among　the　methods　of　enforcing　payment


of　a　debt　described　in　the　collection　of　rules　attributed　to　the


semi…divine　legislator；　Manu　（viii。　49）；　is　one　which　Sir　William


Jones　renders　'the　mediation　of　friends；'　but　more　recent


Sanscrit　scholars　assert　that　the　expression　of　the　original　text


signifies　'dharna。'　And　in　the　Vyavahara　Mayukha；　a　Brahminical


law…book　of　much　authority；　Brihaspiti；　a　juridical　writer


sometimes　classed　with　Manu；　is　cited　as　enumerating；　among　the


lawful　modes　of　compulsion　by　which　the　debtor　can　be　made　to


pay；　'confining　his　wife；　his　son；　or　his　cattle；　or　watching


constantly　at　his　door。'　This　remarkable　passage　not　only


connects　Hindoo　law　with　Irish　law　through　the　reference　to


'watching　constantly　at　the　door；'　but　it　connects　it　also　with


the　Teutonic；　and　among　them　with　the　English　bodies　of　custom；


by　speaking　of　the　distraint　of　cattle　as　a　method　of　enforcing　a


demand。　We　have　not　in　the　Western　world；　so　far　as　I　am　aware；


any　example　of　so　strong　a　form　of　distress　as　seizing　a　man's


wife　or　children；　but　it　is　somewhat　curious　that　we　have


evidence　of　its　having　been　common　in　ancient　Ireland　to　give　a


son　as　a　pledge　to　the　creditor　for　the　purpose　of　releasing　the


distrained　property。


　　　　Lord　Teignmouth　has　left　us　a　description　（in　Forbes'


'Oriental　Memoirs；'　ii。　25）　of　the　form　which　the　'watching


constantly　at　the　door'　of　Brihaspiti　had　assumed　in　British


India　before　the　end　of　the　last　century。　'The　inviolability　of


the　Brahmin　is　a　fixed　principle　with　the　Hindoos；　and　to　deprive


him　of　life；　either　by　direct　violence　or　by　causing　his　death　in


any　mode；　is　a　crime　which　admits　of　no　expiation。　To　this


principle　may　be　traced　the　practice　called　dharna；　which　may　be