lect10-第3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！




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


doing　right　universally　than　for　the　purpose　of　supplying　an


alternative　to　the　violent　redress　of　wrong。　Even　then　if　we


suppose　that　the　Ireland　which　is　said　to　have　enjoyed　an


elaborate　judicial　organization　was　greatly　ruder　and　wilder　than


Irish　patriots　would　probably　allow　it　to　have　been；　there　is　no


such　inconsistency　between　the　prevalence　of　disorder　and　the


frequency　of　litigation　as　would　make　them　exclude　one　another。


The　Norse　literature；　which　Mr　Dasent　has　popularised　among　us；


shows　that　perpetual　fighting　and　perpetual　litigation　may　go　on


side　by　side；　and　that　a　highly　technical　procedure　may　be


scrupulously　followed　at　a　time　when　homicide　is　an　everyday


occurrence。　The　fact　seems　to　be　that　contention　in　Court　takes


the　place　of　contention　in　arms；　but　only　gradually　takes　its


place；　and　it　is　a　tenable　theory　that　many　of　the　strange


peculiarities　of　ancient　law；　the　technical　snares；　traps；　and


pitfalls　with　which　it　abounds；　really　represent　and　carry　on　the


feints；　stratagems；　and　ambuscades　of　actual　armed　strife　between


man　and　man；　between　tribe　and　tribe。　Even　in　our　own　day；　when　a


wild　province　is　annexed　to　the　British　Indian　Empire；　there　is　a


most　curious　and　instructive　rush　of　suitors　to　the　Courts　which


are　immediately　established。　The　arm　of　the　law　summarily


suppresses　violence；　and　the　men　who　can　no　longer　fight　go　to


law　instead；　in　numbers　which　sometimes　make　Indian　officials


believe　that　there　must　be　something　maleficent　in　the　law　and


procedure　which　tempt　men　into　Court　who　never　saw　a　Court


before。　The　simple　explanation　is　that　the　same　natural　impulse


is　gratified　in　a　new　way；　hasty　appeals　to　a　judge　succeed


hurried　quarrels；　and　hereditary　law…suits　take　the　place　of


ancestral　blood…feuds。　If　the　transition　from　one　state　of


society　to　another　in　modern　India　were　not　sudden　but　gradual


and　slow；　as　it　universally　was　in　the　old　Aryan　world；　we　should


see　the　battle　with　technicalities　going　on　in　Court　at　the　same


time　that　the　battle　was　waged　out　of　Court　with　sword　and


matchlock。


　　　　When；　however；　we　are　considering　the　place　in　legal　history


of　the　old　Irish　Law　of　Distress；　the　point　to　which　we　have　to


attend　is　not　so　much　the　mere　existence　of　Courts　of　Justice　as


the　effectiveness　of　their　process；　or　in　other　words　the　degree


in　which　they　command　the　public　force　of　the　Commonwealth。　I


think　I　have　shown　it　to　be　probable　that；　in　proportion　as


Courts　grow　stronger；　they　first　take　under　their　control　the


barbarous　practice　of　making　reprisals　on　a　wrongdoer　by　seizing


his　property；　and　ultimately　they　absorb　it　into　their　own


procedure。　Now；　the　Irish　Law　of　Distress　belongs　in　one　respect


to　a　very　early　stage　in　this　course　of　development；　since　it　is


even　more　completely　extrajudicial　than　is　that　fragment　of　the


primitive　barbarous　remedy　which　has　survived　among　ourselves。　On


the　other　hand；　there　are　several　particulars　in　which　it　is　not


more　but　distinctly　less　archaic　than　the　English　Common　law。　The


'Notice'　to　the　defendant；　for　which　it　provides　　the　'Stay；'


or　temporary　retention　of　the　goods　by　the　owner；　subject　to　a


lien　　the　witnesses　who　have　to　be　present；　and　the　skilled


legal　adviser　who　has　to　attend　throughout　the　proceedings　


belong　to　a　range　of　ideas　greatly　more　advanced　than　that　under


which　all　these　precautions　are　dispensed　with。　Even　stronger


evidence　of　maturity　is　furnished　by　the　almost　inconceivable


multitude　of　rules　and　distinctions　which　the　Senchus　Mor　applies


to　every　part　of　the　proceedings；　and　our　own　experience　shows


that　the　most　remarkable　feature　of　the　old　Irish　law；　the


forfeiture　of　the　property　taken　in　distress　when　the　original


debt　and　the　expenses　of　custody　come　up　to　its　full　value；　has


its　place　among　the　latest　improvements　in　jurisprudence。


　　　　Whatever；　then；　be　the　truth　as　to　the　Ireland　of　the　golden


age；　these　characteristics　of　the　Irish　Law　of　Distress　leave　on


my　mind　a　very　distinct　impression　that　it　was　brought　to　the


shape　in　which　we　find　it　amid　a　society　in　which　the　action　of


Courts　of　Justice　was　feeble　and　intermittent。　It　says　much　for


the　spirit　of　equity　and　reasonableness　which　animated　the　Brehon


lawyers　who　gave　it　its　form；　and　much　also　for　their　ingenuity；


but　suggests　that　they　relied　little　on　the　assistance　of　Courts


and　directed　their　efforts　to　making　the　most　of　a　remedy　which


was　almost　wholly　extrajudicial。　The　comparison　of　the　Teutonic


laws　shows　that　they　had　a　basis　of　Aryan　custom　to　work　upon；


but；　while　in　other　communities　the　superstructure　on　this


foundation　was　the　work　of　Courts　ever　feeling　themselves


stronger；　in　Ireland　it　seems　to　have　been　the　work　of　lawyers


dependent　in　the　main　for　the　usefulness　of　their　labours　on


popular　respect　for　their　order。　I　do　not　affect　to　say　how　the


ancient　law　of　Ireland　is　to　be　fitted　to　the　ancient　history。　It


may　be　that　the　picture　of　judicial　organisation　found　in　some


law…tracts　is；　like　the　description　of　private　law　found　in


others；　rather　a　representation　of　what　ought　to　be　than　of　what


is　or　has　been。　It　may　be　also　that　the　law　laid　down　in　the


Senchus　Mor　is　of　much　later　date　than　the　compilers　of　that


tract　pretend；　and　that　therefore　it　received　its　shape　in　times


of　disturbance　and　confusion。　But　I　cannot　believe　that　it　ever


synchronised　with　a　period　of　judicial　activity　and　efficiency。


　　　　From　what　I　have　said　I　think　you　will　have　collected　the


chief　points　of　difference　between　the　Irish　Law　of　Distress；　as


laid　down　in　the　Senchus　Mor；　and　the　english　Common　Law　of


Distress；　as　declared　by　the　earliest　authorities　which　our


Courts　recognise。　Both　had　the　same　origin；　but　the　Irish


distraint　was　an　universal；　highly　developed　proceed　ing　employed


in　enforcing　all　kinds　of　demands；　while　the　corresponding


English　remedy；　though　much　less　carefully　guarded　by　express


rules；　was　confined　to　a　very　limited　and　special　class　of　cases。


I　have　a　melancholy　reason　for　calling　your　attention　to　the


contrast。　Edmund　Spenser　has　spoken　of　it；　in　his　'View　of　the


State　of　Ireland；'　and　here　is　the　passage：　


　　　　'There　are　one　or　two　statutes　which　make　the　wrongful


distraining　of　any　man's　goods　against　the　forme　of　Common　Law　to


be　fellony。　The　which　statutes　seeme　surely　to　have　been　at　first


meant　for　the　good　of　the　realme；　and　for　restrayning　of　a　foul


abuse；　which　then　reigned　commonly　among　that　people；　and　yet　is


not　altogether　laide；　that；　when　anyone　was　indebted　to　another；


he　would　first　demand　his　debt；　and；　if　he　were　not　paid；　he


would　straight　go　and　take　a　distress　of　his　goods　and　cattell；


w