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