Theinterestofthesetwocompendiaisverygreat。Inthefirstplace，theygofartoshowushowitwasthatthepowerofthetribalChiefincreased，notmerelyoverhisserviledependants，butoverthefreetribesmenamongwhomhehadbeenatfirstonlyprimusinterpares。Inthenext，theygiveus，fromtheauthenticrecordsoftheancientusagesofoneparticularsociety，aperfectlynovelexampleofaproceedingbywhichfeudalvassalagewascreated。IneedscarcelydwellonthehistoricalimportanceofthevariousagenciesbywhichtherelationofLordandVassalwasfirstestablished。ItwasbythemthattheWesterneuropeoftheRomandespotismwaschangedintotheWesternEuropeofthefeudalsovereignties。Nothingcanbemorestrikinglyunlikeinexternalaspectthanthestatesofsocietywhicharediscernedoneithersideofthestormyintervalfilledwiththemovementandsubsidenceofthebarbarianinvasions。Justbeforeitisreached，weseealargepartofmankindarranged，sotospeak，ononevastlevelsurfacedominatedineverypartbytheovershadowingauthorityoftheRomanEmperor。Onthistheylieassomanyequalunits，connectedtogetherbynoinstitutionswhicharenotassumedtobethecreationofpositiveRomanlaw；andbetweenthemandtheirsovereignthereisnothingbutahostoffunctionarieswhoarehisservants。WhenfeudalEuropehasbeenconstituted，allthisischanged。Everybodyhasbecomethesubordinateofsomebodyelsehigherthanhimselfandyetexaltedabovehimbynogreatdistance。IfImayagainemployanimageusedbymebefore，societyhastakentheformofapyramidorcone。Thegreatmultitudeofcultivatorsisatitsbase；andthenitmountsupthroughever-narrowingsectionstillitapproachesanapex，notalwaysvisible，butalwayssupposedtobediscoverable，intheEmperor，orthePope，orGodAlmighty。Thereisstrongreasontobelievethatneitherpicturecontainsalltheactualdetail，andthatneitherthetheoryoftheRomanlawyersononesidenorthetheoryofthefeudallawyersontheotheraccountsforortakesnoticeofanumberofcustomsandinstitutionswhichhadapracticalexistenceintheirday。Eithertheorywas，however，foundeduponthemoststrikingfactsoftheepochatwhichitwasframed。
　　Weknowsomething，thoughnotverymuch，oftheformalinstrumentalitiesbywhichthelatersetoffactsbecamesoextremelydissimilartotheearlier。MrStubbs’ConstitutionalHistory，’i。252hasthussummarisedthemostmodernviewsonthesubject。Feudalism’hadgrownupfromtwogreatsources，theBeneficeandthepracticeofCommendation。Thebeneficiarysystemoriginatedpartlyingiftsoflandmadebythekingsoutoftheirownestatestotheirkinsmenandservants，withaspecialundertakingtobefaithful，partlyinthesurrenderbylandownersoftheirestatestochurchesorpowerfulmen，tobereceivedbackagainandheldbythemastenantsforrentorservice。Bythelatterarrangementtheweakermanobtainedtheprotectionofthestronger，andhewhofelthimselfinsecureplacedhistitleunderthedefenceoftheChurch。BythepracticeofCommendation，ontheotherhand，theinferiorputhimselfunderthepersonalcareofalord，butwithoutalteringhistitleordivestinghimselfofhisrighttohisestate；hebecameavassalanddidhomage。’
　　Commendation，inparticular，wentonalloverWesternEuropewithsingularuniversalityofoperationandsingularuniformityofresult，andithelpedtotransformtheancientstructureofTeutonicsocietynolessthantheinstitutionsoftheRomanProvincials。Yetthereisconsiderablemysteryaboutmen’smotivesforreportingtosoonerousaproceeding，andthestatementsofnearlyallwritersonthesubjectaregeneralandchieflyconjectural。PerhapsthemostpreciseassertionwhichwehavebeenhithertoabletohazardastothereasonsofsolargeapartoftheworldforvoluntarilyplacingthemselvesinaconditIonofpersonalsubordinationis，thattheymusthavebeenconnectedwiththesystemofcivilandcriminalresponsibilitywhichprevailedinthosetimes。Families——realorartificial-naturalorformedbyagreement——wereresponsiblefortheoffencesandevenforthecivilliabilitiesoftheirmembers；
　　butcorporateresponsibilitymusthavebeenreplaced，convenientlyforallpersonsconcerned，bytheresponsibilityofasinglelord，whocouldpreventinjuryandpaycompensationforit，andwhosetestimony，incompurgationandotherlegalproceedings，hadaweightoftenassignedtoitexceedingthatofseveralinferiorpersonscombined。Moregenerally，butwithatleastequalplausibility，wecanlaydownthatthegeneraldisorderoftheworldhadmuchtodowiththegrowthofthenewinstitutions；andthatalittlesocietycompactlyunitedunderafeudallordwasgreatlystrongerfordefenceorattackthananybodyofkinsmenorco-villagersandthananyassemblageofvoluntaryconfederates。Itwouldbeabsurd，however，tosupposethatwehavematerialsforaconfidentopinionastomen’smotivesforsubmittingthemselvestoachangewhichwasprobablyrecommendedtothemorforcedonthembyveryvariouscircumstancesindifferentcountriesandinrelativelydifferentstagesofsociety。
　　IdonotwishtogeneraliseundulyfromthenewinformationfurnishedbytheBrehonlaw，buttherehaslongbeenasuspicionIcannotcallitmoreamonglearnedmenthatCelticusageswouldthrowsomelightonCommendation，and，atanyrate，amidthedearthofourmaterials，anyadditiontothemfromanauthenticsourceisofvalue。LetmeagainstatetheimpressionI
　　haveformedoftheancientIrishland-system，inthestageatwhichitisrevealedtousbytheBrehontracts。Thelandofthetribe，whethercultivatedorwaste，belongstothetribe，andthisistrue，whetherthetribebeajoint-familyofkinsmenoralargerandmoreartificialassemblage。Suchtheoreticallyistheprinciple，ifthetraditionalviewoftheprimitivestateofthingsmaybecalledatheory。ButmuchoftheterritoryofthelargertribeshagbeenpermanentlyassignedtoChieflyfamiliesortosmallersub-divisionsoftribesmen，andthelandofthesmallersub-divisionstendsevertobecomedividedamongtheirmembers，subjecttocertainreservedrightsofthecollectivebrotherhood。Everyconsiderabletribe，andalmosteverysmallerbodyofmencontainedinit，isunderaChief，whetherhebeoneofthemanytribalrulerswhomtheIrishrecordscallKings，orwhetherhebeoneofthoseheadsofjoint-familieswhomtheAnglo-IrishlawyersatalaterdatecalledtheCapitaCognationum。Butheisnotownerofthetriballaid。hisownlandhemayhave，consistingofprivateestateorofofficialdomain，orofboth，andoverthegeneraltriballandhehasageneraladministrativeauthority，whichisevergrowinggreateroverthatportionofitwhichisunappropriatedwaste。Heismeanwhilethemilitaryleaderofhistribesmen，and，probablyinthatcapacity，hehasacquiredgreatwealthincattle。Ithassomehowbecomeofgreatimportancetohimtoplaceoutportionsofhisherdsamongthetribesmen，andtheyontheirpartoccasionallyfindthemselvesthroughstressofcircumstanceinpressingneedofcattleforemploymentintillage。ThustheChiefsappearintheBrehonlawasperpetually’givingstock，’andthetribesmenasreceivingit。Theremarkablethingis，thatoutofthispracticegrew，notonlythefamiliarincidentsofownership，suchastherighttorentandtheliabilitytopayit，togetherwithsomeotherincidentslesspleasantlyfamiliartothestudentofIrishhistory，but，aboveandbesidesthese，newlyallthewell-knownincidentsoffeudaltenure。ItisbytakingstockthatthefreeIrishtribesmanbecomestheCeileorKyle，thevassalormanofhisChief，owinghimnotonlyrentbutserviceandhomage。Theexacteffectsof’commendation’arethusproduced，andtheinterestingcircumstanceisthattheyareproducedfromasimpleandintelligiblemotive。ThetransactionbetweenChiefandVassalisveryburdensometothelatter，butthenecessitywhichleadstoitispressing，andtheforceofthisnecessitywouldbegreaterthemoreprimitivethesocietyinwhichitarose，andthemorerecentitssettlementonitslands。Allthisisespeciallyinstructive，becausethereisnoreasonwhatevertosupposethatBeneficiarygrantsandCommendationarosesuddenlyintheworldatthedisruptionoftheRomanEmpire。Theywereprobably，insomeformorother，deeplyseatedamongtherudimentaryusagesofallAryansocieties。
　　ThenewpositionwhichthetribesmanassumedthroughacceptingstockfromaChiefvariedaccordingtothequantityofstockhereceived。Ifhetookmuchstockhesanktoamuchlowerstatusthanifhehadtakenlittle。OnthisdifferenceinthequantityacceptedthereturnsthedifferencebetweenthetwogreatclassesofIrishtenantry，theSaerandDaertenants，betweenwhosestatusandthatofthefreeandhigherbasetenantsofanEnglishmanorthereisaresemblancenottobemistaken。
　　TheSaer-stocktenant，distinguishedbythelimitedamountofstockwhichhereceivedfromtheChief，remainedafreemanandretainedhistribalrightsintheirintegrity。Thenormalperiodofhistenancywassevenyears，andattheendofithebecameentitledtothecattlewhichhadbeeninhispossession。Meantimehehadtheadvantageofemployingthemintillage，andtheChiefonhispartreceivedthe’growthandincreaseandmilk，’thefirsttwowordsimplyingtheyoungandthemanure。Sofarthereisnothingveryremarkableinthearrangement，butitisexpresslylaiddownthatbesidesthisitentitledtheChieftoreceivehomageandmanuallabour；manuallabourisexplainedtomeantheserviceofthevassalinreapingtheChief’sharvestandinassistingtobuildhiscastleorfort，anditisstatedthat，inlieuofmanuallabour，thevassalmightberequiredtofollowhisChieftothewars。AnylargeadditiontothestockdepositedwiththeSaer-stocktenant，oranunusualquantityacceptedinthefirstinstancebythetribesman，createdtherelationbetweenvassalandchiefcalledDaer-stocktenancy。TheDaer-stocktenanthadunquestionablypartedwithsomeportionofhisfreedom，andhisdutiesareinvariablyreferredtoasveryonerous。ThestockgiventohimbytheChiefconsistedoftwoportions，ofwhichonewasproportionatetotherankoftherecipient，theothertotherentinkindtowhichthetenantbecameliable。Thetechnicalstandardofthefirstwasthetenant’s’honor-price，’thefineordamagewhichwaspayableforinjuringhim，andwhichintheseancientsystemsoflawvarieswiththedignityofthepersoninjured。TherelationbetweenthesecondportionofstockandtherentiselaboratelydefinedintheBrehonlaw：’Theproportionatestockofacalfofthevalueofasackwithitsaccompaniments，andrefectionsforthreepersonsinthesummer，andworkforthreedays，isthree“samhaisc“heifersortheirvalue’
　　’Cain-Aigillne，’p。25；or，inotherwords，thattheChiefmayentitlehimselftothecalf，therefections，andthelabour，hemustdepositthreeheiferswiththetenant。’Theproportionatestockofa“dartadh“heiferwithitsaccompaniment，istwelve“seds，“’explainedtomeantwelve’samhaisc’heifers，orsixcows。Andsooninmanyplaces。Therentinkind，orfood-rent，whichwasthusproportionedtothestockreceived，unquestionablydevelopedintimeintoarentpayableinrespectofthetenant’sland；butitiscertainlyacuriousandunexpectedfactthattherentoftheclasswhichisbelievedtohaveembracedaverylargepartoftheancientIrishtenantrydidnot，initsearliestform，correspondinanywaytothevalueofthetenant’sland，butsolelytothevalueoftheChief’spropertydepositedwiththetenant。ButthemostburdensomeobligationimposedontheDaerstocktenantisthatwhich，inthequotationjustmadebyme，isexpressedbytheword’refections。’Besidetherentinkindandthefeudalservices，theChiefwhohadgivenstockwasentitledtocome，withacompanyofacertainnumber，andfeastattheDearstocktenant’shouse，atparticularperiods，forafixednumberofdays。This’rightofrefection，’andliabilitytoit，areamongthemostdistinctivefeaturesofancientIrishcustom，andtheiroriginisprobablytobeexplainedbythecircumstancethattheIrishChief，thoughfarmoreprivilegedthanhistenants，waslittlebetterhousedandalmostaspoorlyfurnishedout，andcouldnothavemanagedtoconsumeathometheprovisionstowhichhisgiftsofstockentitledhim。Butthepracticehadamostunhappyhistory。TheBrehonlawdefinesitandlimitsitnarrowlyonallsides；butitsinconvenienceanditstendencytodegenerateintoanabusearemanifest，andfromitaredoubtlessdescendedthoseoppressionswhichrevoltedsuchEnglishobserversofIrelandasSpenserandDavis，the’coinandlivery，’andthe’cosherings’oftheIrishChiefs，whichtheydenouncewithsuchindignantemphasis。PerhapstherewasnoIrishusagewhichseemedtoEnglishmensoamplytojustifythatwhichasawholeIbelievetohavebeenagreatmistakeandagreatwrong，theentirejudicialorlegislativeabolitionofIrishcustoms。TheprecautionsbywhichtheBrehonlawyerscouldfenceitinwerenotprobablyatanytimeveryeffectual，but，asI
　　beforestated，theydidwhattheycould；and，moreover，asdefinedbythem，therelationoutofwhichDaer-stocktenancyanditspeculiarobligationsarosewasnotperpetual。Afterfood-rentandservicehadbeenrenderedforsevenyears，iftheChiefdied，thetenantbecameentitledtothestock；while，ontheotherhand，ifthetenantdied，hisheirswerepartly，thoughnotwholly，relievedfromtheirobligation。AtthesametimeitisveryprobablethatDaer-stocktenancy，whichmusthavebeguninthenecessitiesofthetenant，wasoftenfromthesamecauserenderedpracticallypermanent。
　　IthasfrequentlybeenconjecturedthatcertainincidentsoffeudaltenurepointedbacktosomesuchsystemastheBrehontractsdescribetous。TheHeriotofEnglishCopyholdtenure，the’bestbeast’takenbytheLordonthedeathofabasetenant，hasbeenexplainedasanacknowledgmentoftheLord’sownershipofthecattlewithwhichheancientlystockedthelandofhisvilleins，justastheHeriotofthemilitarytenantisbelievedtohavehaditsorigininadepositofarms。AdamSmithrecognisedthegreatantiquityoftheMetayertenancy，stillwidelyspreadovertheContinent，ofwhichonevarietywasinhisdayfoundinScotlandunderthenameof’steelbow。’Iamnotatallsurprisedthat，inoneofthePrefacestotheofficialtranslationoftheBrehonlaws，acomparisonshouldbeinstitutedbetweenthistenancyandtheSaerandDaer-stocktenancyofancientIrishlaw。Theoutwardresemblanceisconsiderable，andthehistoryofMetayertenancyissoobscurethatIcertainlycannotundertaketosaythatpracticesansweringtothoseIhavedescribedhadnotinsomecountriessomethingtodowithitsprimitiveform。Butthedistinctionsbetweentheancientandthemoderntenanciesaremoreimportantthantheanalogies。InMetayertenancyalandlordsuppliesthelandandstock，atenantthelabouronlyandtheskill；butinSaerandDaer-stocktenancythelandbelongedtothetenant。Again，theeffectoftheancientIrishrelationwastoproduce，notmerelyacontractualliability，butastatus。Thetenanthadhissocialandtribalpositiondistinctlyalteredbyacceptingstock。Further，theacceptanceofstockwasnotalwaysvoluntary。Atribesman，inonestageofIrishcustomatallevents，wasboundtoreceivestockfromhisown’King，’or，inotherwords，fromtheChiefofhistribeinitslargestextension；andeverywheretheBrehonlawsseemtometospeakoftheacceptanceofstockasahardnecessity。Lastly，theTribetowhichtheintendingtenantbelongedhadinsomecasesaVetoonhisadoptionofthenewposition，whichwasclearlyregardedasaproceedinginvasiveoftribalrightsandcalculatedtoenfeeblethem。InordertogivetheTribetheopportunityofinterposingwheneverithadlegalpowertodoso，theacceptanceofstockhadtobeopenandpublic，andtheconsequencesofeffectingitsurreptitiouslyareelaboratelysetforthbythelaw。Itseemstomeclearthatitwasdiscouragedbythecurrentpopularmorality。Oneofthoserules，frequentinancientbodiesoflaw，whicharerathermoralpreceptsthanjuridicalprovisions，declaresthat’nomanshouldleavearentonhislandwhichhedidnotfindthere。’