AlmosteverygestureandalmosteverysetofformalwordsintheLegisActioSacramentisymbolisesomethingwhich，insomepartoftheworldoranother，insomeAryansocietyoranother，hasdevelopedintoanimportantinstitution。Theclaimantplaceshishandontheslaveorothersubjectofdispute，andthisgraspofthethingclaimed，whichisreproducedinthecorrespondingprocedureoftheancientGermansandwhich，fromthem，wascontinuedinvariousmodifiedformsfardownintotheMiddleAges，isanearlyexampleofthatdemandbeforeactiononwhichallcivilisedsystemsoflawinsist。Thewand，whichtheclaimantheldinhishand，isstatedbyGaiustohaverepresentedaspear，andthespear，theemblemofthestrongmanarmed，servedasthesymbolofpropertyheldabsolutelyandagainsttheworld，notonlyintheRomanbutinseveralotherWesternsocieties。Theproceedingsincludedaseriesofassertionsandreassertionsofrightbytheparties，andthisformaldialoguewastheparentoftheArtofPleading。Thequarrelbetweenplaintiffanddefendant，whichwasamerepretenceamongtheRomans，longremainedarealityinothersocieties，and，thoughitstheorywasaltered，itsurvivedintheWagerofBattlewhich，asanEnglishinstitution，wasonlyfinallyabolishedinourfathers’day。TheinterpositionofthePraetorandtheacceptanceofhismediationexpandedintotheAdministrationofJusticeintheRomanState，oneofthemostpowerfulofinstrumentalitiesinthehistoricaltransformationofthecivilisedworld。Thedisputantsstakedasumofmoney——theSacramentum，fromwhichtheproceedingstooktheirname——onthemeritsoftheirquarrel，andthestakewentintothepublicexchequer。Themoneythuswagered，whichappearsinasingularlylargenumberofarchaiclegalsystems，istheearliestrepresentativeofthoseCourt-feeswhichhavebeenamoreconsiderablepowerinlegalhistorythanhistoriansoflawarealtogetherinclinedtoadmit。TheveryspiritinwhichaLegisActiowasconductedwasthatwhich，intheeyesoflaymen，hasbeenmostcharacteristicoflawyersinallhistoricaltimes。
If，SaysGaius。yousuedbyLegisActioforinjurytoyourvines，andcalledthemvines，youwouldfail；youmustcallthemtrees，becausethetextoftheTwelveTablesspokeonlyoftrees。TheancientcollectionofTeutoniclegalformulas，knownastheMalbergGloss，containsprovisionsofpreciselythesamecharacter。Ifyousueforabull，youwillmiscarryifyoudescribehimasabull；youmustgivehimhisancientjuridicaldesignationof’leaderoftheherd。’Youmustcalltheforefingerthe’arrow’-finger，thegoatthe’browseruponleeks。’TherearelawyersalivewhocanrecollectwhentheEnglishsystemofSpecialPleading，nowjustexpiring，wasapplieduponprinciplesnotremotelyakintotheseandhistoricallydescendedfromthem。
ThedescriptiongivenbyGaiusoftheLegisActioSacramentiisfollowedbyalacunainthemanuscript。ItwasonceoccupiedwithanaccountoftheJudicisPostulatio，whichwasevidentlyamodificationoftheolderSacramentalActionbywhichthisancientremedywasadaptedtoaparticularclassofcases。ThetextofthetreatisebeginsagainwithadescriptionoftheCondictio，whichissaidbyGaiustohavebeencreated，butwhichisbelievedtohavebeenonlyregulated，bytwoRomanstatutesofthesixthcenturyofRome——theLexSiliaandtheLexCalpurnia。
TheCondictio，whichafterwardsdevelopedintooneofthemostusefuloftheRomanactions，originallyderiveditsnamefromanoticewhichtheplaintiffgavethedefendanttoappearbeforethePraetorinthirtydays，inorderthataJudexorrefereemightbenominated；andimmediatelyasImyselfthinkonthisnoticebeinggiven，thepartiesenteredintoa’sponsio’and’restipulatio，’thatis，theylaidaformalwagerdistinctfromthestakecalledSacramentumonthejusticeoftheirrespectivecontentions。Thesumthusstaked，whichwasalwaysequaltoathirdoftheamountindispute，wentintheendtothesuccessfullitigant，andnot，liketheSacramentum，totheState。Lawyerswondered，Gaiustellsus，thatsuchanactionshouldbeneededwhenpropertycouldhavebeenrecoveredbytheolderandunmodifiedprocedure。ManytechnicalanswerstothisquestionhavebeengivenbymoderncommentatorsonRomanlaw，butwewillseewhetherabetterexplanationofitcannotbeobtainedbyapproachingitfromanotherside。
Gaius，leavingtheCondictio，proceedstodiscusstwooftheLegisActiones，theManusInjectioandthePignorisCapio，whichcannotbemadetosquareinanywaywithourmodernconceptionofanaction。TheManusInjectioisexpresslystatedtohavebeenoriginallytheRomanmodeofexecutionagainstthepersonofajudgmentdebtor。Ithasconsiderablehistoricalinterest，foritwasundoubtedlytheinstrumentofthecrueltiespractisedbytheRomanaristocracyontheirdefaultingplebeiandebtors，andthusitgavethefirstimpetustoaseriesofpopularmovementswhichaffectedthewholehistoryoftheRomanCommonwealth。ThePignorisCapioalso，possiblyunderaslightlyalteredname，wasamodeofexecutioninlatertimesagainstpropertyafterdecree；
butthiswasnotitsoriginalpurposeasaLegisActio。Itwasatfirstawhollyextra-judicialproceeding。Thepersonwhoproceededbyitseizedincertaincasesthegoodsofafellow-citizen，againstwhomhehadaclaim，butagainstwhomhehadnotinstitutedasuit。Thepowerofseizurecouldbeexercisedbysoldiersagainstpublicofficersboundtosupplythemwithpay，horse，orforage；anditcouldalsoberesortedtobythesellerofabeastforsacrificeagainstadefaultingpurchaser……Itwasthusconfinedtoclaimsofgreaturgencyorofhighlysacredobligation；butitwasafterwardsextendedtodemandsforoverduearrearsofpublicrevenue。IamindebtedtoMrPostefortheobservationthattheidealinstitutionsofPlato’sLawsincludesomethingstronglyresemblingtheRomanPignorisCapio；andhereagainitisaremedyforbreachofpublicdutiesconnectedwithmilitaryserviceorreligiousobservance。
ItakethePignorisCapioastheimmediatestarting-pointofallwhichIamabouttosayonthesubjectofAncientCivilProcedure。FirstofallletusaskwhetherGaiushimselfgivesusanyhintofitsmeaningandsignificanceintheprimitiveRomansystem。Theclueisslender，butitseemstomesufficientlytraceableinthestatementthatthePignorisCapiocouldberesortedtointheabsenceofthePraetorandgenerallyinthatofthepersonunderliability，andalsothatitmightbecarriedoutevenwhentheCourtswerenotsitting。
LetusgobackforamomenttotheparentLegisActio——theL。A。Sacramenti。Itsvenerableformspresupposeaquarrelandcelebratethemodeofsettlingit。ItisapassingarbitratorwhoseinterpositionissimulatedbythePraetor。Butsupposethereisnoarbitratorathand。Whatexpedientforaverting。
bloodshedremains，andisanysuchexpedientreflectedinthatancientprocedurewhich，bythefactofitsexistence，impliesthatthesheddingofbloodhassomehowbeenprevented？
IdaresayIshallattheoutsetappeartobemakingatrivialremarkwhenIsaythatonemethodofgainingtheobjectistolayawager。Evennowthisisoneofthecommonestwaysofpostponingadisputeastoamatteroffact，andthetruthisthatthetendencytobetuponresultsliesextremelydeepinhumannature，andhasgrownupwithitfromitsremoteinfancy。
Itisnoteverybodywho，whenhisbloodishot，willsubmittohaveaquarrelreferredtoathirdpersonpresent，muchlesstoathirdpersonabsent；buthewillconstantlydoso，ifhelaysawageronit，andif，besidesbeingfoundintheright，hehasachanceofreceivingtheamountstaked。AndthisIsuppose——
differing，Iown，fromseveralhighauthorities——tobethetruesignificanceoftheSponsioandRestipulatio，whichweknowtohavebeenoftheessenceoftheancientRomanCondictio，andoftheagreementtoappearbeforethePraetorinthirtydays。TheLegisActioSacramentiassumesthatthequarrelisatoncereferredtoapresentarbitrator；theCondictiothatthereferenceistothedecisionofanarbitratorafterthirtydays’
interval，butmeantimethepartieshaveenteredintoaseparatewageronthemeritsoftheirdispute。WeknowthattheliabilitytoanindependentpenaltyattachedtothesuitorbyCondictioevenwhenithadbecomeoneofthemostimportantRomanactions，andthatitwasstillexactedintheageofCicero。
Thereisyetanotherprimitivecontrivancebywhich，intheabsenceofapresentarbitrator，aquarrelmaybepreventedfromissuinginbloodshed。Theclaimantwillingtogotoarbitrationmay，intheabsenceofhisadversary，orifhebethestronger，inhispresence，takeforciblepossessionofhismoveablepropertyanddetainittillhetoosubmits。IbelievethistohavebeenthetrueprimitiveofficeofthePignorisCapio，thoughthefullevidenceofmyopinionwillnotbebeforeyoutillI
havetrackedthesameinstitutionthroughthetwilightofotherlegalsystems。AmongtheRomans，evenatthedateoftheTwelveTables，ithadbecometoemployMrTylor’sphraseameresurvival，confinedtocaseswhenthedenialofjusticewascondemnedbysuperstitionorbyasenseofthesternestpublicemergency；andthiswasaconsequenceoftheexceptionallyrapiddevelopmentofRomanlawandprocedure，andoftheexceptionallyearlydateatwhichtheRomantribunalsbecametheorgansofthenationalsovereignty。Youwillseehereafterhowmuchreasonthereisforthinkingthattheprogressofmostsocietiestowardsacompleteadministrationofjusticewasslowandgradual，andthattheCommonwealthatfirstinterferedthroughitsvariousorgansrathertokeeporderandseefairplayinquarrelsthantookthem，asitnowdoesalwaysandeverywhere，intoitsownhands。Tothisperiod，longforgottenamongtheRomans，thosepeculiarrulespointedbackwhichsurvivedalongwiththePignorisCapio，andwhichprovidedforitsexerciseoutofcourtandduringthejudicialvacation。
IturntotheTeutonicsocietiesforvestigesofapracticesimilartothatwhichtheRomanscalledPignorisCapio。TheyseemtobequiteunmistakeableinthatportionofourownEnglishlawwhichisconcernedwiththepowerofDistraintorDistressandwiththeconnectedlegalremedyknownasReplevin。Theexamplesoftherighttodistrainanotherman’spropertywhicharemostfamiliartoyouare，Idaresay，thelandlord’srighttoseizethegoodsofhistenantforunpaidrent，andtherightofthelawfulpossessoroflandtotakeandimpoundstraybeastswhicharedamaginghiscropsorsoil。Theprocessbywhichthelatterrightismadeeffectualretainsfarmoreoftheancientinstitutionthandoesdistressforrent。Forthepeculiarpowerofthelandlordtodistrainforrent，whileitremainsanextrajudicialremedy，hasbeenconvertedintoacompleteremedyofitskindbyaseriesofstatutescomparativelymodern。Ithasalways，however，beenthetheoryofthemostlearnedEnglishlawyersthatdistressisinprincipleanincompleteremedy；itsprimaryobjectistocompelthepersonagainstwhomitisproperlyemployedtomakesatisfaction。Butgoodsdistrainedforrentarenowadaysnotmerelyheldasasecurityforthelandlord’sclaim；theyareultimatelyputupforsalewithcertainprescribedformalities，thelandlordispaidoutoftheproceeds，andtheoverplusisreturnedtothetenant。Thustheproceedinghasbecomemerelyaspecialmethodbywhichpaymentofrent，andcertainotherpaymentswhichareplacedonthesamefooting，areenforcedwithoutthehelpofaCourtofJustice。Butthedistraintofcattlefordamagestillretainsavarietyofarchaicfeatures。Itisnotacompleteremedy。Thetakermerelykeepsthecattleuntilsatisfactionismadetohimfortheinjury，ortilltheyarereturnedbyhimonanengagementtocontesttherighttodistraininanactionofReplevin。
ThepracticeofDistress——oftakingnams，awordpreservedintheoncefamouslaw-termwithernam——isattestedbyrecordsconsiderablyolderthantheConquest。Thereisreasontobelievethatancientlyitwasresortedtoinmanymorecasesthanouroldestcommon-lawauthoritiesrecognise；butaboutthereignofHenrytheThird，whenitwasconfinedtocertainspecificclaimsandwrongs，thecourseoftheproceedingwasasfollows：Thepersonassuminghimselftobeaggrievedseizedthegoodswhichancientlywerealmostalwaysthecattleofthepersonwhomhebelievedtohaveinjuredhimorfailedindutytowardshim。Hedrovethebeaststoapound，anenclosedpieceoflandreservedforthepurpose，andgenerallyopentothesky。LetmeobserveinpassingthatthereisnomoreancientinstitutioninthecountrythantheVillage-Pound。ItisfarolderthantheKing’sBench，andprobablyolderthantheKingdom。Whilethecattlewereontheirwaytothepoundtheownerhadalimitedrightofrescuewhichthelawrecognised，butwhichherangreatriskinexercising。Oncelodgedwithintheenclosure，theimpoundedbeasts，whenthepoundwasuncovered，hadtobefedbytheownerandnotbythedistrainor；norwastherulealteredtillthepresentreign。Thedistrainor’spartintheproceedingsendedinfactwiththeimpounding；andwehavetoconsiderwhatcourseswerethereuponopentothepersonwhosecattlehadbeenseized。
Ofcoursehemightsubmitanddischargethedemand。Orhemighttendersecurityforitsacquittal。Oragainhemightremainobstinateandleavehisbeastsinthepound。Itmighthappen，however，thathealtogetherdeniedthedistrainor’srighttodistrain，orthatthelatter，onsecuritybeingtenderedtohimfortheadjustmentofhisclaim，refusedtoreleasethecattle。
Ineitherofthesecaststhecattle-owneratleastatthetimeofwhichwearespeakingmighteitherapplytotheKing’sChanceryforawritcommandingtheSheriffto’makereplevin，’orhemightverballycomplainhimselftotheSheriff，whowouldthenproceedatonceto’replevy。’Theprocessdenotedbythisancientphraseconsistedofseveralstages。TheSherifffirstofalldemandedaviewoftheimpoundedcattle；ifthiswererefused，hetreatedthedistrainorashavingcommittedaviolentbreachoftheKing’speace，andraisedthehueandcryafterhim。Ifthecattleasdoubtlessconstantlywasthecasehadbeendriventoadistanceandoutofhisjurisdiction，theSheriffsoughtforcattleofthedistrainorandseizedthemtodoublethevalueofthebeastswhichwerenotforthcoming——the’takinginwithernam’ofoldEnglishlaw。Inmorepeaceabletimes，however，andamonglaw-abidingpeople，thedeputyoftheCrownwasallowedtoseethecattle，whichheimmediatelyreturnedtotheiroriginalowneronapledgetoabidebythedecisionofaCourtofJustice。Adaywasthenappointedforthetrial，whichtookplacewiththeproceedingwellknowntolawyersastheActionofReplevin。Agreatdealoftechnicallearninghasclusteredroundit，butforourpurposesitisenoughtosaythattheplaintiffintheactionwastheownerofthedistrainedcattleandthedefendantwasthedistrainor。