thedebthasbeensatisfied。Ontheotherhand，severalfeatures
oftheIrishsystem，whicharewhollyabsentfromtheContinental
Teutonicprocedure，orveryfaintlymarkedinit，belong
conspicuouslytotheEnglishlaw。Amongthesemaybeplacedthe
impounding，andthe’takinginwithernam，’butthegreat。
Resemblanceofall，andthecommonpointofdissimilarityfrom
themostancientoftheLegesBarbarorum，liesinthefactthat
theIrishprocedure，liketheEnglish，requiresneither
assistancenorpermissionfromanyCourtofJustice。Inallthe
TeutonicbodiesofcustomexcepttheEnglishandtheLombardic，
evenwhenthegreatestlatitudeofseizureisallowedto
litigantsoutofCourt，some。judicialpersonorbodymustbe
appliedtobeforetheyproceedtoextremities。Withus，however，
theentireseizureiscompletedbeforeauthorityiscalledin；
andtheIrishlawhasexactlythesamepeculiarity。Notonlyso，
buttheIrishlawcorrespondstotheEnglishlawofDistressina
veryadvancedstageofdevelopment。Itdoesnotemploythe
seizureofcattlemerelyasamethodofextortingsatisfaction。
Itprovides，asyouhaveseen，fortheirforfeitureindischarge
oftheDemandforwhichtheyweretaken；andthusis
distinguishedbyanimprovementwhichwasonlyaddedtothe
Englishlawbystatuteafterthelapseofseveralcenturies。
ThetruedifficultyinestimatingtheplaceofthisIrish
procedureinthehistoricaldevelopmentoflawarisesfromdoubts
astothepartreallyplayedbythelegalproceedinginwhichit
terminated。TheEnglishprocessofdistress，whereveritwasfelt
tobeunjust，ledupto，andendedin，theactionofreplevin，
andthecourt，whichultimatelytriedtheaction，practically
acquireditsjurisdictionthroughtheinterpositionofthe
Sheriffinrestoringthecattleuponsecuritygiven。Nosuch
interferencewithahighhandasthatoftheSheriffappearsto
becontemplatedbytheIrishlaw。buttheBrehonlawyerwhoought
properlytoaccompanythedistrainorisexpresslystatedbythe
SenchusMortoaidhim’untilthedecisionofaCourt。’’Ancient
LawsofIreland，’i。85。Whatwastheproceedingthusreferred
to？WhatauthorityhadtheIrishCourtsatanytimeatwhichthe
Brehonlawwasheldinrespect？WhatweretheseCourts？Towhat
extentdidtheycommandthepublicforceofthesovereignState？
wasthereanysovereignpoweratanytimeestablishedinanypart
ofIrelandwhichcouldgiveoperativejurisdictiontoCourtsof
Justiceandoperativeforcetothelaw？Allthesequestions——of
whichthelastareintruththegreatproblemsofancientIrish
history——mustinsomedegreebeansweredbeforewecanhave
anything，likeaconfidentopinionontheactualworkingofthe
LawofDistresssetforthatsuchlengthintheSenchusMor。
ThelearnedEditorsofthevariousIntroductionsprefixedto
theofficialpublicationsofAncientIrishLawareplainlyof
opinionthatsuchjurisdictionasanyIrishCourtspossessedwas，
tousethetechnicalphrase，voluntary。TheLawofDistress，in
thisview，wasclearlyenoughconceivedbytheBrehonlawyer，but
itdependedforthepracticalobediencewhichitobtainedonthe
aidofpublicopinionandofpopularrespectforaprofessional
Caste。Itsobjectwastoforcedisputantstosubmittowhatwas
ratheranarbitrationthananaction，beforeaBrehonselectedby
themselves，oratmostbeforesomerecognisedtribunaladvisedby
aBrehon。Atthesametime，itwouldseemthatthereareancient
Irishtractsorfragmentsoftractsinexistencewhichdescribe
theancientIrishashavinghadamostelaboratepublic
organisation，judicialaswellaslegislative。DrSullivan，in
hisIntroduction，admitsthattheinformationwhichhascomedown
tousonthesesubjectsisveryfragmentary，andsoobscurethat
itwillbeimpossibletogiveasatisfactoryaccountofthem
untilthewholeofthelaw-fragmentsinIrishMSS。arepublished
oratleastmadeaccessibletoscholars；buthenevertheless
believesinthehistoricalrealityofthisorganisation，andhe
speaksIntroduction，pp。cclii。cclxii。oftheIrishCourtsin
languageofextremelymoderntinge。EnoughisknownofIrish
historytomakeitverydifficulttounderstandwhenthis
elaboratejudicialsystemcanhaveexisted；butaplaceisfound
foritbyattributingittoaperiodnotonlybeforethe
Anglo-NormaninvasionsofIreland，butbeforetheVikingdescents
ontheIrishcoasts。Thesafestcourseiscertainlytoreserve
one’sopiniononthesubjectuntiltheauthoritiesforDr
Sullivan’sstatementshavebeenmuchmorecriticallyexamined
thantheyhavebeen；butIamboundtosaythattheyarenotso
inherentlyimprobable，norareDrSullivan’sopinionssohardto
reconcilewiththeviewsoftheEditorsofthetranslations，as
personsunacquaintedwithlegalhistorymightsuppose。Thereare
analogiestomanyofthetribunalsdescribedamongthe
rudimentaryinstitutionsofseveralcommunities。Suchtribunals
mightfurtherbehighlydevelopedandyettheirjurisdiction
mightbeonlyvoluntary。Sohmappearstometohaveprovedthat
theFrankishPopularCourtsdidnotexecutetheirowndecrees；if
thedefendanthadpromisedtosubmittoanaward，thelocal
deputyoftheKingmightberequiredtoenforceit，but，ifthere
hadbeennosuchpromise，theplaintiffwasforcedtopetition
theKinginperson。Thereismuchreasoninfactforthinking
that，intheearliesttimesandbeforethefulldevelopmentof
thatkinglyauthoritywhichhaslentsomuchvigourtothearmof
thelawinmostAryancommunities，butwhichwasvirtuallydenied
totheIrish，CourtsofJusticeexistedlessforthepurposeof
doingrightuniversallythanforthepurposeofsupplyingan
alternativetotheviolentredressofwrong。Eventhenifwe
supposethattheIrelandwhichissaidtohaveenjoyedan
elaboratejudicialorganizationwasgreatlyruderandwilderthan
Irishpatriotswouldprobablyallowittohavebeen，thereisno
suchinconsistencybetweentheprevalenceofdisorderandthe
frequencyoflitigationaswouldmakethemexcludeoneanother。
TheNorseliterature，whichMrDasenthaspopularisedamongus，
showsthatperpetualfightingandperpetuallitigationmaygoon
sidebyside，andthatahighlytechnicalproceduremaybe
scrupulouslyfollowedatatimewhenhomicideisaneveryday
occurrence。ThefactseemstobethatcontentioninCourttakes
theplaceofcontentioninarms，butonlygraduallytakesits
place；anditisatenabletheorythatmanyofthestrange
peculiaritiesofancientlaw，thetechnicalsnares，traps，and
pitfallswithwhichitabounds，reallyrepresentandcarryonthe
feints，stratagems，andambuscadesofactualarmedstrifebetween
manandman，betweentribeandtribe。Eveninourownday，whena
wildprovinceisannexedtotheBritishIndianEmpire，thereisa
mostcuriousandinstructiverushofsuitorstotheCourtswhich
areimmediatelyestablished。Thearmofthelawsummarily
suppressesviolence，andthemenwhocannolongerfightgoto
lawinstead，innumberswhichsometimesmakeIndianofficials
believethattheremustbesomethingmaleficentinthelawand
procedurewhichtemptmenintoCourtwhoneversawaCourt
before。Thesimpleexplanationisthatthesamenaturalimpulse
isgratifiedinanewway；hastyappealstoajudgesucceed
hurriedquarrels，andhereditarylaw-suitstaketheplaceof
ancestralblood-feuds。Ifthetransitionfromonestateof
societytoanotherinmodernIndiawerenotsuddenbutgradual
andslow，asituniversallywasintheoldAryanworld，weshould
seethebattlewithtechnicalitiesgoingoninCourtatthesame
timethatthebattlewaswagedoutofCourtwithswordand
matchlock。
When，however，weareconsideringtheplaceinlegalhistory
oftheoldIrishLawofDistress，thepointtowhichwehaveto
attendisnotsomuchthemereexistenceofCourtsofJusticeas
theeffectivenessoftheirprocess，orinotherwordsthedegree
inwhichtheycommandthepublicforceoftheCommonwealth。I
thinkIhaveshownittobeprobablethat，inproportionas
Courtsgrowstronger，theyfirsttakeundertheircontrolthe
barbarouspracticeofmakingreprisalsonawrongdoerbyseizing
hisproperty，andultimatelytheyabsorbitintotheirown
procedure。Now，theIrishLawofDistressbelongsinonerespect
toaveryearlystageinthiscourseofdevelopment，sinceitis
evenmorecompletelyextrajudicialthanisthatfragmentofthe
primitivebarbarousremedywhichhassurvivedamongourselves。On
theotherhand，thereareseveralparticularsinwhichitisnot
morebutdistinctlylessarchaicthantheEnglishCommonlaw。The
’Notice’tothedefendant，forwhichitprovides——the’Stay，’
ortemporaryretentionofthegoodsbytheowner，subjecttoa
lien——thewitnesseswhohavetobepresent，andtheskilled
legaladviserwhohastoattendthroughouttheproceedings——
belongtoarangeofideasgreatlymoreadvancedthanthatunder
whichalltheseprecautionsaredispensedwith。Evenstronger
evidenceofmaturityisfurnishedbythealmostinconceivable
multitudeofrulesanddistinctionswhichtheSenchusMorapplies
toeverypartoftheproceedings；andourownexperienceshows
thatthemostremarkablefeatureoftheoldIrishlaw，the
forfeitureofthepropertytakenindistresswhentheoriginal
debtandtheexpensesofcustodycomeuptoitsfullvalue，has
itsplaceamongthelatestimprovementsinjurisprudence。
Whatever，then，bethetruthastotheIrelandofthegolden
age，thesecharacteristicsoftheIrishLawofDistressleaveon
mymindaverydistinctimpressionthatitwasbroughttothe
shapeinwhichwefinditamidasocietyinwhichtheactionof
CourtsofJusticewasfeebleandintermittent。Itsaysmuchfor
thespiritofequityandreasonablenesswhichanimatedtheBrehon
lawyerswhogaveititsform，andmuchalsofortheiringenuity，
butsuggeststhattheyreliedlittleontheassistanceofCourts
anddirectedtheireffortstomakingthemostofaremedywhich
wasalmostwhollyextrajudicial。ThecomparisonoftheTeutonic
lawsshowsthattheyhadabasisofAryancustomtoworkupon；
but，whileinothercommunitiesthesuperstructureonthis
foundationwastheworkofCourtseverfeelingthemselves
stronger，inIrelanditseemstohavebeentheworkoflawyers
dependentinthemainfortheusefulnessoftheirlabourson
popularrespectfortheirorder。Idonotaffecttosayhowthe
ancientlawofIrelandistobefittedtotheancienthistory。It
maybethatthepictureofjudicialorganisationfoundinsome
law-tractsis，likethedescriptionofprivatelawfoundin
others，ratherarepresentationofwhatoughttobethanofwhat
isorhasbeen。Itmaybealsothatthelawlaiddowninthe
SenchusMorisofmuchlaterdatethanthecompilersofthat
tractpretend，andthatthereforeitreceiveditsshapeintimes
ofdisturbanceandconfusion。ButIcannotbelievethatitever
synchronisedwithaperiodofjudicialactivityandefficiency。
FromwhatIhavesaidIthinkyouwillhavecollectedthe
chiefpointsofdifferencebetweentheIrishLawofDistress，as
laiddownintheSenchusMor，andtheenglishCommonLawof
Distress，asdeclaredbytheearliestauthoritieswhichour
Courtsrecognise。Bothhadthesameorigin，buttheIrish
distraintwasanuniversal，highlydevelopedproceedingemployed
inenforcingallkindsofdemands，whilethecorresponding
Englishremedy，thoughmuchlesscarefullyguardedbyexpress
rules，wasconfinedtoaverylimitedandspecialclassofcases。
Ihaveamelancholyreasonforcallingyourattentiontothe
contrast。EdmundSpenserhasspokenofit，inhis’Viewofthe