lect09- 第5部分

with　the　most　rigorous　accuracy；　he　in　his　turn；　besides　failing






in　his　object；　incurred　a　variety　of　penalties；　which　could　be






just　as　harshly　exacted　as　his　own　original　demand。　The






difficulty　of　putting　the　procedure　into　operation　thus　at　once






made　disputants　cautious　in　resorting　to　it；　and　seemed　to　men　in






general　to　compensate　for　its　inherent　inequitableness。　This






consideration；　however；　though　it　explains　in　part　how　the　harsh






ancient　law　reconciled　itself　to　the　sense　of　right；　is　not　by






itself　sufficient　to　account　for　the　form　which　it　assumed　in　the






Teutonic　Codes；　or　for　the　vitality　of　a　portion　of　it　amid　our






own　institutions。






　　　　I　cannot　doubt　that　the　practice　which　I　have　called　by　the






general　name　of　Distress　kept　its　place　in　ancient　Teutonic　law






partly　as　a　mere　'survival。'　I　have　already　insisted　that　one






great　characteristic　of　the　primitive　ages　was　the　fewness　of






human　ideas。　Societies；　just　emerging　from　the　savage　state；　had






been　used　to　associate　redress　of　wrong　with　the　seizure　of　a






wrong…doer's　goods；　and　they　were　unable　mentally　quite　to






disconnect　the　two　even　when　they　began　to　regulate　the　practice。






They　did　not；　therefore；　supersede　distress　by　a　wholly　new






system；　but　engrafted　it　on　a　later　procedure；　which　occasionally






took　the　form　so　curiously　preserved　in　its　main　features　to　our






own　day　by　the　English　Common　law；　but　which　at　a　relatively






later　date　and　more　generally　may　be　believed　to　have　shaped






itself　on　the　model　of　the　rules　observed　by　the　Salian　Franks。






　　　　It　is　not　possible　to　explain　all　survivals　by　some






convenience　which　they　incidentally　serve。　Some　have　undoubtedly






been　continued　by　superstition；　some　by　mere　habit。　But　those






relics　of　ancient　thought　and　conduct　which　have　been　kept　alive






longest　have　generally　had　an　usefulness　of　their　own。　Here　the






private　redress　of　wrong；　taken　into　the　legal　procedure；　served






to　compel　the　appearance　of　the　defendant　and　his　submission　to






jurisdiction　at　a　time　when　judicial　authority　was　yet　in　its






infancy；　and　when　Courts　of　Justice　could　not　as　yet　completely






and　regularly　command　the　aid　of　sovereign　power。　Gradually；　as






the　public　force；　the　arm　of　the　State；　was　more　and　more　placed






at　the　disposal　of　tribunals；　they　were　able　more　and　more　to






dispense　with　extrajudicial　assistance。　In　the　state　of　Teutonic






law　represented　by　the　Frankish　Code；　we　find　a　specific　class　of






cases　tried　throughout　judicially　（in　our　modern　sense　of　the






word）　from　the　initial　stage　to　the　judgment；　but　the　judgment　is






not　by　its　own　force　operative。　If　the　defendant　has　expressly






promised　to　obey　it；　the　Count　or　royal　deputy；　on　being　properly






summoned；　will　execute　it；　but　if　no　such　promise　has　been　made；






the　plaintiff　has　no　remedy　except　an　application　to　the　King　in






person。　No　long　time；　however；　after　the　Franks　have　been　settled






within　the　Empire；　we　find　that　mother　step　has　been　taken






towards　the　administration　of　justice　on　modern　principles；　and






now　the　royal　deputy　will　execute　the　judgment　even　though　there






has　been　no　promise　to　submit　to　it。　At　this　point　Distress　is






wholly　taken　out　of　the　hands　of　private　litigants　and






extrajudicial　seizure　becomes　judicial　seizure。　The　change　is






obviously　a　result　of　the　growing　vigour　of　Courts；　greatly　due






in　our　own　country　to　the　development　of　royal　justice　at　the






expense　of　popular　justice。　Still　English　judicial　proceedings






long　savoured　of　the　old　practices。　Every　student　of　our　ancient






English　forms　of　proceeding　will　recollect　on　what　small　apparent






provocation　the　King　constantly　took　the　lands　of　the　defendant






into　his　hands　or　seized　his　goods；　simply　to　compel　or　perfect






his　submission　to　the　royal　jurisdiction。　It　seems　probable　that






Distress　was　gradually　lost　in　and　absorbed　by　Attachment　and






Distringas。　The　theory　of　Attachment　now　is　that　it　is　the　taking






of　property　into　the　actual　or　constructive　possession　of　the






judicial　power；　and　the　later　course　of　change　under　which　it　has






faded　into　an　occasional　and　exceptional　proceeding；　requiring　to






be　justified　by　special　reasons；　corresponds　with　the　growing






confidence　of　Courts　of　Justice　in　their　possession　of






irresistible　power　confided　to　them　by　the　sovereign。　As　regards






that　fragment　of　the　primitive　institution　which　remains　in　our






law；　I　imagine　that　Distress　would　at　most　have　become　a　mere






survival；　confined　perhaps　to　the　impounding　of　stray　cattle；　if






several　statutory　innovations　had　not　turned　it　into　a　convenient






extra…judicial　remedy　for　landlords；　by　giving　the　distrainor　a






power　of　sale　which　in　old　English　law　was　limited　to　a　few　very






special　demands。　The　modern　theory　of　Distress　is　that　a　landlord






is　allowed　to　distrain　because　by　the　nature　of　the　case　he　is






always　compelled　to　give　his　tenant　credit；　and　that　he　can






distrain　without　notice　because　every　man　is　supposed　to　know






when　his　rent　is　due。　But　this　theory；　though　it　explains　the






continuance　of　Distress　to　our　day；　does　not　at　all　fit　in　with






the　most　ancient　ideas　on　the　subject；　and　could　not　indeed　be






easily　made　to　square　with　the　practice　of　distraint　even　at　a






date　so　comparatively　late　as　that　at　which　Bracton　wrote。　How






accidental　is　the　association　of　Distress　with　the　powers　of






landlords　may　be　seen　from　the　fact　that；　though　there　are






plentiful　traces　of　the　institution　in　the　ancient　Scottish　law；






the　same　practical　results　which　the　English　system　produces　by






allowing　landlords　to　distrain　for　rent　are　chiefly　attained　in






Scotland　by　applying　to　landlord　and　tenant　the　Romanised　Law　of






Hypothek。






　　　　The　comparison　of　the　various　Teutonic　bodies　of　law　suggests






then　to　my　mind　as　regards　those　systems；　the　following






conclusions　respecting　the　historical　development　of　the　remedies






which　grew　out　of　the　savage　practice　of　violently　seizing






property　in　redress　for　supposed　wrong。　Two　alternative






expedients　were　adopted　by　nascent　law。　One　of　these　consisted　in






tolerating　distraint　up　to　a　certain　point；　it　was　connived　at　so






far　as　it　served　to　compel　the　submission　of　defendants　to　the






jurisdiction　of　Courts；　but　in　all　other　cases　it　was　treated　as






wilful　breach　of　the　peace。　The　other　was　the　incorporation　of






distraint　with　a　regular　procedure。　The　complainant　must　observe






a　great　number　of　forms　at　his　peril；　but　if　he　observes　them　he






can　distrain　in　the　end。　In　a　still　more　advanced　condition　of






legal　ideas；　the　tribunals　take　the　seizure　of　land　or　goods　into






their　own　hands；　using　it　freely　to　coerce　defendants　into






submission。　Finally；　Courts　of　Justice　resort　to　coercion　before






judgment　only　on　the　rarest　occasions；　sure　as　they　at　last　are






of　the　effectiveness　of　their　process；　and　of　the　power　which






they　hold　in　deposit　from　the　Sovereign　Commonwealth。