ThestatusoftheChiefhasthusleftusonebequestintheruleofPrimogeniture，which，however，haslonglostitsmostancientform；anotherintherighttoreceivecertainduesandtoenforcecertainmonopolies；andathirdinaspeciallyabsoluteformofpropertywhichwasonceexclusivelyenjoyedbytheChief，andafterhimbytheLord，intheportionofthetribalterritorywhichformedhisowndomain。Ontheotherhand，severalsystemsofsuccessionafterdeath，andamongthemtheequaldivisionofthelandbetweenthechildren，havesprungoutoftribalownershipinvariousstagesofdecay；andithasleftanothersetoftracesnotquitesowidelyextended，inanumberofminutecustomaryruleswhichgoverntillageandoccasionallyregulatethedistributionoftheproduce。
　　ThefateofthisdoublesetofinstitutionsinEnglandandinFranceappearstomemostinstructive。IhavefrequentlydweltinthisplaceontheerroneousnessofthevulgaropinionwhichdatestheextremesubdivisionofthesoilofFrancefromthefirstFrenchRevolution，andfromthesaleoftheChurchlandsandoftheestatesoftheemigrantnobility。Awriter——IwasgoingtosayascommonlyreadasArthurYoung，butcertainlyasoftenmentionedasifhewerecommonlyread——noticesthismorcellement，ontheveryeveoftheFrenchRevolution，andimmediatelyafterit，asthegreatfeaturewhichdistinguishedFrancefromEngland。’FromwhatweseeinEngland，’hesays，’Travelsin1787，’88，and，’89’p。407’wecannotformanideaoftheabundanceinFranceofsmallproperties，thatis，littlefarmsbelongingtothosewhocultivatethem。’Heestimatesthatmorethanathirdofthekingdomwasoccupiedbythem——averylargeproportion，whentheextentofChurchlandinFranceistakenintoaccount；butrecentFrenchinvestigationshaveshownreasonsforthinkingthatthetrueproportionwasstilllarger，andthatitwasrathergrowingthandiminishing，throughthatextravaganceofthenobleswhichCourtlifefostered，andwhichcompelledthemtoselltheirdomainstopeasantsinsmallparcels。Youngclearlysawthatthissubdivisionofthesoilwastheresultofsomelegalrule；andstronglydissentingfromtheRevolutionaryleaderswhowishedtocarryitfarther，hedeclaredthat’alawoughttobepassedtorenderalldivisionbelowacertainnumberofarpentsillegal。’
　　ItseemstohaveverygenerallyescapednoticethatthelawofequalornearlyequaldivisionafterdeathwasthegenerallawofFrance。Theruleofprimogeniturewasofexceptionalapplication，andwasforthemostpartconfinedtolandsheldbyknightlytenure；indeed，intheSouthofFrance，wherethecustomofequaldivisionwasstrengthenedbytheidenticalruleoftheRomanjurisprudence，theprivilegesoftheeldestsonwereonlysecuredbycallingintheexceptionalrulesofwhichtheRomanLawgivesthebenefittomilitesorsoldiersonservicewhenmakingtheirwillsorregulatingtheirsuccessions，andbylayingdownthateverychevalier，andeverynobleofhigherdegree，wasamileswithinthemeaningoftheRomanjuridicalwriters。Thetwosystemsofsuccessionandthetwoformsofpropertylaysidebyside，andthereweremenalivequiterecentlywhocouldrememberthebitteranimositiescausedbytheirco-existenceandantagonism。Averygreatpartofthelandheldbylaymenbelongedtothepeasantry，anddescendedaccordingtotheruleofequaldivision，buteldestsonaftereldestsonsucceededtothesignory。Yetitwasnottheruleofprimogeniturefollowedinnobledescentswhichwasthetruegrievance；atmostitbecameagrievanceundertheinfluenceofthepeculiarveinofsentimentintroducedbyRousseau。Thelegacyfromtribalsovereigntytosignorialprivilege，whichwasreallyresented，wasthatwhichI
　　placedsecondinorder。Therighttoreceivefeudalduesandtoenforcepettymonopolies，nowalmostextinguishedinEnglandbythemeasurestowhichtheCopyholdCommissionhasgiveneffect，hadceasedlongbeforetheendofthelastcenturytobeofanyconsiderableimportancetotheclasswhichwasinvestedwithit；
　　butM。deTocquevillehasexplained，inhis’AncienR間ime’i。
　　18，thatitmadeupalmosttheentiremeansoflivingwhichthemajorityoftheFrenchnobilitypossessed。Acertainnumberofnoblemen，besidestheirfeudalrights，hadtheirterres，ordomain，belongingtotheminabsoluteproperty，andsometimesofenormousextent；andthewealthiestmembersofthislimitedclass，thegrands，whosofrequentlyappearinFrenchCourthistory，butwho，awayfromtheCourt，weremuchthemostrespectedandbelovedoftheirorder，formedthecounterpart，fromthelegalpointofview，oftheEnglishlandedproprietary。
　　Therestofthenobleslivedmainly，notonrent，butontheirfeudaldues，andekedoutameagresubsistencebyservingtheKinginarms。Thesenseofpropertyinthesoilwasthusnotinthelordbutinthepeasantry；andthepeasantryviewedtheexerciseofsignorialrightswithafeelingcloselyakintothatwhichisinspiredbyahighlyoppressivetax。TheconditionofsentimentproducedbyitisevennowapoliticalforceofsomemomentinFrance；andasimilar，thoughafarweaker，repulsionisknowntohavebeencausedinthiscountrybythetakingoftithesinkind。Itisasignificantfactthat，wheretheownershipisacknowledgedtoresideinthesuperiorholder，theexactionofevenanextremerentfromthetenantsbelowhasveryrarelybeenregardedwiththesamebitternessofresentment。
　　Thechange，therefore，whichtookplaceinFranceatthefirstRevolutionwasthis：theland-lawofthepeoplesupersededtheland-lawofthenobles，InEnglandtheconverseprocesshasbeengonethrough，andwhathasoccurredisobviouslyinharmonywithmuchelseinEnglishhistory。Thesystemofthenobleshasbecomeinallessentialparticularsthesystemofthepeople。Theruleofprimogeniture，whichonceappliedonlytoknightlyholdings，cametoapplytothegreatbulkofEnglishtenures，excepttheGavelkindofKentandsomeothersofmerelylocalimportance。Thispartofthechangetookplaceataremoteepoch，anditscircumstancesareinvolvedinmuchobscurity；andweknowlittlemoreofitwithcertaintythanthatitwasrapidlyproceedingbetweenthetimeatwhichGlanvilleandthetimeatwhichBractonwrote。Glanville，probablynotearlierthanthethirty-thirdyearofHenrytheSecond’sreign，expresseshimselfasifthegeneralruleoflawcausedlandsheldbyfreecultivatorsinsocagetobedividedequallybetweenallthemalechildrenatthedeathofthelastowner；Bracton，probablynotlaterthanthefifty-secondyearofHenrytheThird，writesasiftheruleofprimogenitureapplieduniversallytomilitarytenuresandgenerallytosocagetenures。Butanotherbranchoftheprocesswaspostponedalmosttoourownday。PossiblynotmanyEnglishmenhaverecognisedwithasmuchclearnessasarecentFrenchwriterDoniol，’LaRevolutionFran鏰iseetlaF閛dalit*’
　　thatthetransmutationofcustomaryandcopyholdintofreeholdproperty，whichhasbeenproceedingforaboutfortyyearsundertheconductoftheCopyholdandEnclosureCommissioners，isthepeacefulandinsensibleremovalofagrievancewhichdidmorethananyothertobringaboutthefirstFrenchRevolutionandtopreventthere-establishmentoftheancientpoliticalorder。ButlongbeforetherewasaCopyholdCommission，thegreatmassofEnglishlandedpropertyhadassumedcertaincharacteristicswhichstronglydistinguisheditfromthepeasantpropertyoftheContinentasitexistedbeforeitwasaffectedbytheFrenchCodes，andasitisstillfoundinsomecountries。Thislastformofproprietorshipwasverygenerallyfetteredbythedutyofcultivationinsomeparticularway，and，asarule，couldnotbedealtwithsoastobartherightsreservedtothechildrenandwidowoftheownerbythelawofsuccession。Thetracesofasimilarspeciesofownership，probablyoncewidelydiffused，maystillbehereandtherediscernedthroughthecustomsofparticularEnglishmanors。IrepeattheopinionwhichIexpressedthreeyearsago，thatourmodernEnglishconceptionofabsolutepropertyinlandisreallydescendedfromthespecialproprietorshipenjoyedbytheLord，andmoreancientlybythetribalChief，inhisownDomain。ItwouldbeoutofplacetoenterhereonadiscussionofthechangeswhichseemtomedesirableinordertomakethesoilofEnglandasfreelyexchangeableasthetheorynowgenerallyaccepteddemands；buttotheprincipleofseveralandabsolutepropertyinlandIholdthiscountrytobecommitted。IbelieveIstatetheinferencesuggestedbyallknownlegalhistorywhenIsaythattherecanbenomaterialadvanceincivilisationunlesslandedpropertyisheldbygroupsatleastassmallasFamilies；andIagainremindyouthatweareindebtedtothepeculiarlyabsoluteEnglishformofownershipforsuchanachievementasthecultivationofthesoilofNorthAmerica。
　　BeforedescribingtoyouthenewlightwhichtheAncientLawsofIrelandthrowontheprimitiveconditionoftheinstitutionsofwhichIhavebeenspeaking，letmegiveyouonewordofcautionastothestatementsofmodernIrishwritersrespectingtheoriginalrelationsoftheIrishTribeandoftheIrishTribalChief。UnhappilythesubjecthasbeendiscussedinthespiritofthelateragrarianhistoryofIreland。Ontheonehand，somedisputantshavethoughttoserveapatrioticpurposebycontendingthatthelandofeachTribebelongedabsolutelytoitselfandwasitscommonproperty，andthattheChiefwasamereadministrativeofficer，rewardedforhisservicesinmakingafairdistributionoftheterritoryamongthetribesmenbyaratherlargershareofitsareathantherest，whichwasallottedtohimashisdomain。Contrariwise，somewriters，notperhapsactuatedbymuchkindlinesstotheIrishpeople，haveatleastsuggestedthattheywerealwayscruellyoppressedbytheirsuperiors，andprobablybytheirnaturalchiefsmorethananyothers。TheseauthorspointtothestrongevidenceofoppressionbytheChiefswhichthebooksoftheEnglishobserversofIrelandcontain。EdmundSpenserandSirJohnDaviscannothavemerelyintendedtocalumniatetheIrishnativearistocracywhentheyemphatica1lydeclaredthatthe’chiefsdomostshamefullyrackrenttheirtenants，’andspokewithvehementindignationoftheexactionsfromwhichthetribesmensuffered，the’coshering，’
　　andthe’coinandlivery，’whichoccuroverandoveragainintheirpages。Athirdschool，ofaverydifferentorderfromthese，hasrepresentativesamongthemostlearnedIrishmenofourday。TheyresenttheassertionthatthelandbelongedtothetribeincommonaspracticallyimputingtotheancientIrishthatutterbarbarismtowhichprivatepropertyisunknown。TheysaythattracesofownershipjealouslyguardedarefoundinallpartsoftheBrehonlaws，andtheyareonthewholeapttospeakofthevassalagetotheChiefwhichtheselawsattributetothetribesmenasifitimpliedsomethinglikemoderntenancyinthelatterandmodernownershipintheformer。Buttheysaythattherelationoflandlordandtenantwasregulatedbycarefulandkindlyprovisions，andtheyascribethedegradationofthesystem，liketheotherevilsofIreland，toEnglishcupidityandignorance。TheNormannobleswhofirstsettledinIrelandarewellknowntohavebecomeintimeChieftainsofIrishTribes；anditissuggestedthattheywerethefirsttoforgettheirdutiestotheirtenantsandtothinkofnothingbuttheirprivileges。
　　Noristhereanythingincredibleinthislastassumption。AnEnglishsettlerinIndiawhobuyslandthereisoftenreputedaharderlandlordthanthenativezemindars，hisneighbours，notbecauseheintendstobeharsherindeedinsomethingsheisusuallyfarmoreconsiderateandbountiful，butbecauseheisaccustomedtoastrictersystemandcannotaccommodatehimselftothelooseandirregularplayofrelationsbetweennativelandownerandnativetenant。
　　IcannotwhollyconcurinanyoneofthesetheoriesconcerningChiefandTribe。Eachseemstometocontainaportionoftruth，butnotthewhole。Letmefirstsaythatthewholeland-systemshadowedforthintheBrehonlawsdoesseemtometohaveforitsbasistheprimaryownershipofthetribe-landbytheTribe。ItisalsotruethattheChiefappearstoexercisecertainadministrativedutiesinrespectofthisland，andthathehasaspecificportionofthetribe-landallottedtohim，inthevicinityofhisresidenceorstronghold，forthemaintenanceofhishouseholdandrelatives。Butthisisnotall。Asweseethesystemthroughthelaw，itisnotstationary，butshifting，developing，disintegrating，re-combining。Evenaccordingtothetextsapparentlyoldest，muchofthetribalterritoryappearstohavebeenpermanentlyalienatedtosub-tribes，families，ordependentchiefs；andtheglossesandcommentariesshowthat，beforetheywerewritten，thisprocesshadgoneveryfarindeed。
　　Whatever，again，mayhavebeentheoriginaldignityandauthorityoftheChief，theyareplainlygrowing，notmerelythroughtheintroductionofalienprinciplesandideas，butfromnaturalcauses，moreorlessoperativealloverEurope。ThegeneralcharacterofthesecausesisverymuchthesameasintheGermaniccountries。ThepoweroftheChiefgrowsfirstthroughtheprocesswhichiscalledelsewhere’commendation，’theprocessbywhichthefreetribesmanbecomes’hisman，’andremainsinastateofdependencehavingvariousdegrees。Itfarthergrowsfromhisincreasingauthorityoverthewaste-landsofthetribalterritoryandfromtheservileorsemi-servilecoloniesheplantsthere；andlastly，itaugmentsfromthematerialstrengthwhichheacquiresthroughthenumbersofhisimmediateretainersandassociates，mostofwhomstandtohiminmoreorlessservilerelations。ButtheBrehonlawtellsusmuchthatisnovelandsurprisingconcerningtheparticularcourseofthesechangesandtheirnatureindetail。Itfurnishesuswithsomewhollynewideasconcerningthepassageofsocietyfrominchoatetocompletefeudalism，andhelpsustocompletetheaccountofitderivedfromGermanicsources。Inthis，asitseemstome，thegreatestpartofitsinterestconsists。