lect10-第2部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！




proceedings；　which　has　been　compared　to　an　Attachment；　seems　to


me　better　explained　by　certain　provisions　of　the　'Leges


Barbarorum。'　Under　some　of　them　when　a　person's　property　is　about


to　be　seized　he　makes　a　mimic　resistance；　under　the　Salic　law；　he


protests　against　the　injustice　of　the　attempt；　under　the


Ripuarian　law；　he　goes　through　the　expressive　formality　of


standing　at　his　door　with　a　drawn　sword。　Thereupon；　the　seizure


is　interrupted　and　an　opportunity　is　given　for　enquiring　into　the


regularity　of　the　proceedings　and；　probably　also；　into　the


justice　of　the　claim。　The　Lien　or　charge　upon　the　distrained


property；　which　the　Irish　law　confers　on　the　creditor　during　the


currency　of　the　Stay；　is　not　found　in　the　Continental　Teutonic


law　in　this　exact　shape；　but；　at　a　particular　stage　of　the　Salic


proceedings；　the　creditor　has　the　power　of　interdicting　the


debtor　from　selling　or　mortgaging　any　part　of　his　property　until


the　debt　has　been　satisfied。　On　the　other　hand；　several　features


of　the　Irish　system；　which　are　wholly　absent　from　the　Continental


Teutonic　procedure；　or　very　faintly　marked　in　it；　belong


conspicuously　to　the　English　law。　Among　these　may　be　placed　the


impounding；　and　the　'taking　in　withernam；'　but　the　great。


Resemblance　of　all；　and　the　common　point　of　dissimilarity　from


the　most　ancient　of　the　Leges　Barbarorum；　lies　in　the　fact　that


the　Irish　procedure；　like　the　English；　requires　neither


assistance　nor　permission　from　any　Court　of　Justice。　In　all　the


Teutonic　bodies　of　custom　except　the　English　and　the　Lombardic；


even　when　the　greatest　latitude　of　seizure　is　allowed　to


litigants　out　of　Court；　some。　judicial　person　or　body　must　be


applied　to　before　they　proceed　to　extremities。　With　us；　however；


the　entire　seizure　is　completed　before　authority　is　called　in；


and　the　Irish　law　has　exactly　the　same　peculiarity。　Not　only　so；


but　the　Irish　law　corresponds　to　the　English　law　of　Distress　in　a


very　advanced　stage　of　development。　It　does　not　employ　the


seizure　of　cattle　merely　as　a　method　of　extorting　satisfaction。


It　provides；　as　you　have　seen；　for　their　forfeiture　in　discharge


of　the　Demand　for　which　they　were　taken；　and　thus　is


distinguished　by　an　improvement　which　was　only　added　to　the


English　law　by　statute　after　the　lapse　of　several　centuries。


　　　　The　true　difficulty　in　estimating　the　place　of　this　Irish


procedure　in　the　historical　development　of　law　arises　from　doubts


as　to　the　part　really　played　by　the　legal　proceeding　in　which　it


terminated。　The　English　process　of　distress；　wherever　it　was　felt


to　be　unjust；　led　up　to；　and　ended　in；　the　action　of　replevin；


and　the　court；　which　ultimately　tried　the　action；　practically


acquired　its　jurisdiction　through　the　interposition　of　the


Sheriff　in　restoring　the　cattle　upon　security　given。　No　such


interference　with　a　high　hand　as　that　of　the　Sheriff　appears　to


be　contemplated　by　the　Irish　law。　but　the　Brehon　lawyer　who　ought


properly　to　accompany　the　distrainor　is　expressly　stated　by　the


Senchus　Mor　to　aid　him　'until　the　decision　of　a　Court。'　（'Ancient


Laws　of　Ireland；'　i。　85。）　What　was　the　proceeding　thus　referred


to？　What　authority　had　the　Irish　Courts　at　any　time　at　which　the


Brehon　law　was　held　in　respect？　What　were　these　Courts？　To　what


extent　did　they　command　the　public　force　of　the　sovereign　State？


was　there　any　sovereign　power　at　any　time　established　in　any　part


of　Ireland　which　could　give　operative　jurisdiction　to　Courts　of


Justice　and　operative　force　to　the　law？　All　these　questions　　of


which　the　last　are　in　truth　the　great　problems　of　ancient　Irish


history　　must　in　some　degree　be　answered　before　we　can　have


anything；　like　a　confident　opinion　on　the　actual　working　of　the


Law　of　Distress　set　forth　at　such　length　in　the　Senchus　Mor。


　　　　The　learned　Editors　of　the　various　Introductions　prefixed　to


the　official　publications　of　Ancient　Irish　Law　are　plainly　of


opinion　that　such　jurisdiction　as　any　Irish　Courts　possessed　was；


to　use　the　technical　phrase；　voluntary。　The　Law　of　Distress；　in


this　view；　was　clearly　enough　conceived　by　the　Brehon　lawyer；　but


it　depended　for　the　practical　obedience　which　it　obtained　on　the


aid　of　public　opinion　and　of　popular　respect　for　a　professional


Caste。　Its　object　was　to　force　disputants　to　submit　to　what　was


rather　an　arbitration　than　an　action；　before　a　Brehon　selected　by


themselves；　or　at　most　before　some　recognised　tribunal　advised　by


a　Brehon。　At　the　same　time；　it　would　seem　that　there　are　ancient


Irish　tracts　or　fragments　of　tracts　in　existence　which　describe


the　ancient　Irish　as　having　had　a　most　elaborate　public


organisation；　judicial　as　well　as　legislative。　Dr　Sullivan；　in


his　Introduction；　admits　that　the　information　which　has　come　down


to　us　on　these　subjects　is　very　fragmentary；　and　so　obscure　that


it　will　be　impossible　to　give　a　satisfactory　account　of　them


until　the　whole　of　the　law…fragments　in　Irish　MSS。　are　published


or　at　least　made　accessible　to　scholars；　but　he　nevertheless


believes　in　the　historical　reality　of　this　organisation；　and　he


speaks　（Introduction；　pp。　cclii。　cclxii。）　of　the　Irish　Courts　in


language　of　extremely　modern　tinge。　Enough　is　known　of　Irish


history　to　make　it　very　difficult　to　understand　when　this


elaborate　judicial　system　can　have　existed；　but　a　place　is　found


for　it　by　attributing　it　to　a　period　not　only　before　the


Anglo…Norman　invasions　of　Ireland；　but　before　the　Viking　descents


on　the　Irish　coasts。　The　safest　course　is　certainly　to　reserve


one's　opinion　on　the　subject　until　the　authorities　for　Dr


Sullivan's　statements　have　been　much　more　critically　examined


than　they　have　been；　but　I　am　bound　to　say　that　they　are　not　so


inherently　improbable；　nor　are　Dr　Sullivan's　opinions　so　hard　to


reconcile　with　the　views　of　the　Editors　of　the　translations；　as


persons　unacquainted　with　legal　history　might　suppose。　There　are


analogies　to　many　of　the　tribunals　described　among　the


rudimentary　institutions　of　several　communities。　Such　tribunals


might　further　be　highly　developed　and　yet　their　jurisdiction


might　be　only　voluntary。　Sohm　appears　to　me　to　have　proved　that


the　Frankish　Popular　Courts　did　not　execute　their　own　decrees；　if


the　defendant　had　promised　to　submit　to　an　award；　the　local


deputy　of　the　King　might　be　required　to　enforce　it；　but；　if　there


had　been　no　such　promise；　the　plaintiff　was　forced　to　petition


the　King　in　person。　There　is　much　reason　in　fact　for　thinking


that；　in　the　earliest　times　and　before　the　full　development　of


that　kingly　authority　which　has　lent　so　much　vigour　to　the　arm　of


the　law　in　most　Aryan　communities；　but　which　was　virtually　denied


to　the　Irish；　Courts　of　Justice　existed　less　for　the　purpose　of


doing　right　universally　than　for　the　purpose　of　supplying　an