StateofIreland，’andhereisthepassage：——
’Thereareoneortwostatuteswhichmakethewrongful
distrainingofanyman’sgoodsagainsttheformeofCommonLawto
befellony。Thewhichstatutesseemesurelytohavebeenatfirst
meantforthegoodoftherealme，andforrestrayningofafoul
abuse，whichthenreignedcommonlyamongthatpeople，andyetis
notaltogetherlaide；that，whenanyonewasindebtedtoanother，
hewouldfirstdemandhisdebt，and，ifhewerenotpaid，he
wouldstraightgoandtakeadistressofhisgoodsandcattell，
wherehecouldfindthemtothevalue；whichhewouldkeeptill
heweresatisfied；andthisthesimplechurlastheycallhim
dothcommonlyusetodoeyetthroughignoranceofhismisdoing，
orevilusethathathlongsettledamongthem。Butthis，though
itbesuremostunlawful，yetsurelymeseemsitistoohardto
makeitdeath，sincethereisnopurposeinthepartytosteal
theother’sgoods，ortoconcealthedistress，buthedoethit
openlyforthemostpartbeforewitnesses。Andagainthesame
statutesaresoslacklypennedbesidesthereisoneso
unsensiblycontryvedthatitscarcelycarryethanyreasoninit
thattheyareoftenandveryeasilywrestedtothefraudeofthe
subject，asifonegoingtodistrayneuponhisownlandor
tenement，wherelawfullyhemay，yetifindoingthereofhe
transgressetheleastpointoftheCommonLaw，hestraight
committethfellony。Orifonebyanyotheroccasiontakeany
thingfromanother，asboyessometimescaponeanother，thesame
isstraightfellony。Thisisaveryhardlaw。
Spensergoeson，inapassagewhichIneednotquoteinfull，
toaccountforthesestatutesbyaspecialprovisioninthe
chartersofmostoftheAnglo-Irishcorporatetowns。TheEnglish
lawhadnotcurrency，hetellsus，beyondthewalls，andthe
burgesseshadthepowerconferredonthemofdistrainingthe
goodsofanyIrishmanstayinginthetownorpassingthroughit，
foranydebtwhatsoever。HesuggeststhattheIrishpopulation
outsidewasledinthiswaytosupposeitlawfultodistrainthe
propertyofthetownspeople。Theexplanation，iftrue，wouldbe
sadenough，butweknowthatitcannotconveythewholetruth，
andtherealstoryisstillsadder。TheIrishusedtheremedyof
distressbecausetheyknewnootherremedy，andtheEnglishmade
itacapitalfelonyinanIrishmantofollowtheonlylawwith
whichhewasacquainted。Nay，thoseverysubtletiesofold
Englishlawwhich，asBlackstonesays，madethetakingof
distress’ahazardoussortofproceeding’tothecivil
distrainor，mightbringanIrishmantothegallows，ifin
conscientiouslyattemptingtocarryouttheforeignlawhefell
intothesmallestmistake。Itissomesmallconsolationtobe
able，asoneresultoftheinquirieswehavebeenprosecuting，to
putasideasworthlesstheeasyjustificationofthosewhopass
overthesecrueltiesaspartoftheinevitablestrugglebetween
menofdifferentraces。BoththeIrishlaw，whichitwasa
capitalcrimetoobey，andtheEnglishlaw，whichitwasa
capitalcrimetoblunderinobeying，wereundoubtedlydescended
fromthesamebodyofusageonceuniversallypractisedbythe
forefathersofbothSaxonandCelt。
Amongthewriterswhohaverecognisedthestrongaffinities
connectingtheEnglishandIrishLawofDistress，Ifindit
difficulttodistinguishbetweenthosewhobelieveinthedirect
derivationoftheEnglishlawfrompre-existingCelticcustoms
commontoBritainandIreland，andthosewhoseeasufficient
explanationoftheresemblancesbetweenthetwosetsofrulesin
theircommonparentage。Iamnotatallpreparedtodenythat
recentresearches，andparticularlythoseintooldFrench
customarylaw，renderiteasiertobelievethanitoncewasthat
portionsofprimitiveoraboriginalcustomsurvivethemost
desolatingconquests。ButIneedscarcelysaythatthehypothesis
ofthedirectdescentofanyconsiderablebranchofEnglishlaw
fromBritishusageisbesetbyextraordinarydifficulties，of
whichnottheleastisthecuriouslystrongcasewhichmayalso
bemadeoutforthepurelyRomanoriginofagoodmany
institutionsandruleswhichweareusedtoconsiderpurely
EnglishandGermanic。Onthislastpointaveryinteresting
littlevolume，whichhasattractedtoolittlenotice，MrCoote’s
’NeglectedFactinEnglishHistory，’maybereadwithadvantage，
andshouldbecomparedwiththereplytoitsarguments，onthe
wholeasuccessfulone，whichMr。Freemanpublishedin
’Macmillan’sMagazine，forJuly，1870。Thetruerivalofall
thesetheoriesofthederivationofonebodyofcustomfrom
anotheris，ofcourse，thetheoryofthecommondescentofall
fromanoriginalbasisofusagewhichwemust，provisionallyat
allevents，callAryan。Confiningourselvestothepracticewhich
wehavebeeninvestigating，theremedyforsupposedwrongby
distress，iftherecouldbeadoubtofitsbeingalegacyfrom
theprimitiveAryanusages，itwouldberemovedbytheremarkable
detailwhichconnectstheIrishwiththeHindoolaw。TheIrish
rulesofdistraintverystronglyresembletheEnglishrules，less
stronglyresembletheContinentalTeutonicrules，butthey
includeonerulenotfoundinanyTeutonicCode，almost
unintelligibleintheIrishsystem，butknowntogovernconduct
evenatthishourallovertheEast，whereitsmeaningis
perfectlyclear。Thisistherulethatacreditorwhorequires
paymentfromadebtorofhigherrankthanhimselfshall’fast
uponhim。’Whatpossibleexplanationwillcoverallthefact
exceptthattheprimitiveAryansbequeathedtheremedyof
distresstothecommunitieswhichsprangfromthem，andthat
varietiesofdetailhavebeenproducedbywhatDr。Sullivan，in
hisIntroduction，hashappilycalleddynamicalinfluences？
HereistheleadingprovisionoftheSenchusMoronthe
subjecti。113：——
’Noticeprecedeseverydistressinthecaseoftheinferior
gradesexceptitbebypersonsofdistinctionoruponpersonsof
distinction。Fastingprecedesdistressintheircase。Hewhodoes
notgiveapledgetofastingisanevaderofall；hewho
disregardsallthingsshallnotbepaidbyGodorman。’
Mr。WhitleyStokeswasthefirst，Ibelieve，topointout
thattheinstitutionherereferredtowasidenticalwitha
practicediffusedoverthewholeEast，andcalledbytheHindoos
’sittingdharna。’Iwillpresentlyreadyouapassageinwhich
theproceedingisdescribedasitwasfoundinIndiabeforethe
Britishgovernment，whichhasalwaysregardeditasanabuse，had
gonefarinitseffortstosuppressit。Butperhapsthemost
strikingexamplesoftheancientcustomaretobefoundatthis
dayinPersia，whereIamtoldamanintendingtoenforce
paymentofademandbyfastingbeginsbysowingsomebarleyat
hisdebtor’sdoorandsittingdowninthemiddle。Thesymbolism
isplainenough。Thecreditormeansthathewillstaywhereheis
withoutfood，eitheruntilheispaidoruntilthebarley-seed
growsupandgiveshimbreadtoeat。
ThecorrespondingIndianpracticeisknown，Ibeforestated，
as’sittingdharna’——dharna，accordingtothebetteropinion，
beingexactlyequivalenttotheRoman’capio，’andmeaning
’detention’or’arrest。’Amongthemethodsofenforcingpayment
ofadebtdescribedinthecollectionofrulesattributedtothe
semi-divinelegislator，Manuviii。49，isonewhichSirWilliam
Jonesrenders’themediationoffriends；’butmorerecent
Sanscritscholarsassertthattheexpressionoftheoriginaltext
signifies’dharna。’AndintheVyavaharaMayukha，aBrahminical
law-bookofmuchauthority，Brihaspiti，ajuridicalwriter
sometimesclassedwithManu，iscitedasenumerating，amongthe
lawfulmodesofcompulsionbywhichthedebtorcanbemadeto
pay，’confininghiswife，hisson，orhiscattle，orwatching
constantlyathisdoor。’Thisremarkablepassagenotonly
connectsHindoolawwithIrishlawthroughthereferenceto
’watchingconstantlyatthedoor，’butitconnectsitalsowith
theTeutonic，andamongthemwiththeEnglishbodiesofcustom，
byspeakingofthedistraintofcattleasamethodofenforcinga
demand。WehavenotintheWesternworld，sofarasIamaware，
anyexampleofsostrongaformofdistressasseizingaman’s
wifeorchildren，butitissomewhatcuriousthatwehave
evidenceofitshavingbeencommoninancientIrelandtogivea
sonasapledgetothecreditorforthepurposeofreleasingthe
distrainedproperty。
LordTeignmouthhasleftusadescriptioninForbes’
’OrientalMemoirs，’ii。25oftheformwhichthe’watching
constantlyatthedoor’ofBrihaspitihadassumedinBritish
Indiabeforetheendofthelastcentury。’Theinviolabilityof
theBrahminisafixedprinciplewiththeHindoos，andtodeprive
himoflife，eitherbydirectviolenceorbycausinghisdeathin
anymode，isacrimewhichadmitsofnoexpiation。Tothis
principlemaybetracedthepracticecalleddharna，whichmaybe
translatedcaptionorarrest。ItisusedbytheBrahminstogain
apointwhichcannotbeaccomplishedbyanyothermeans，andthe
processisasfollows：TheBrahminwhoadoptsthisexpedientfor
thepurposementionedproceedstothedoororhouseoftheperson
againstwhomitisdirected，orwhereverhemaymostconveniently
arresthim；hethensitsdownindharnawithpoisonorapoignard
orsomeotherinstrumentofsuicideinhishand，andthreatening
touseitifhisadversaryshouldattempttomolestorpasshim，
hethuscompletelyarrestshim。InthissituationtheBrahmin
fasts，andbytherigouroftheetiquettetheunfortunateobject
ofhisarrestoughttofastalso，andthustheybothremaintill
theinstitutorofthedharnaobtainssatisfaction。Inthis，ashe
seldommakestheattemptwithouttheresolutiontopersevere，he
rarelyfails；forifthepartythusarrestedweretosufferthe
Brahminsittingindharnatoperishbyhunger，thesinwouldfor
everlieuponhishead。Thispracticehasbeenlessfrequentof
lateyears，sincetheinstitutionoftheCourtofJusticeat
Benaresin1793；buttheinterferenceoftheCourtandevenof
theResidenthasoccasionallyprovedinsufficienttocheckit。’
YouwillobservethattheoldBrahminicalwritermerely
speaksofconfiningamantohishouseby’watchingconstantlyat
thedoor’asoneamongseveralmodesofextortingsatisfaction。
Heclassesitwithformsofdistraintmoreintelligibletous——
theseizureofthedebtor’scattle，ofhiswife，orofhischild。
Thoughtheancientrulehasnotdescendedtousalongwithits
originalcontext，weneednotdoubtthatevenintheearliest
timesitwasenforcedbyasupernaturalsanction，sinceevery
violationoftheBrahminicalCodewasregardedbyitsauthorsnot
onlyasaciviloffencebutasasin。ThusaBrahminmightquite
wellbeconceivedassayingwiththewriterintheSenchusMor，
’Hewhodoesnotgiveapledgetofastingisanevaderofall；he
whodisregardsallthingsshallnotbepaidbyGodorman。’Many
centuriesthenelapse，whichitwouldbevaintocalculate，and
almostinourowndaywefindtheancientusagepractisedin
India，butwithmodificationscorrespondingtoagreatdealof
changewhichissuspectedtohaveoccurredinHindootheology。
Theindefinitesupernaturalpenaltyhasbecomethedefinite
supernaturalpenaltyincurredbydestroyinglife，and
particularlyhumanlife。Thecreditornotonly’watchesatthe
door，’butkillshimselfbypoisonordaggerifthearrestis
broken，orbystarvationifpaymentistoolongdelayed。Finally，
wehavethepracticedescribedbyLordTeignmouthasone
peculiarlyorexclusivelyresortedtobyBrahmins。Thesanctity
ofBrahminicallifehasnowinfactprettymuchtaken，inHindoo