ThesystemwhichIhavebeendescribingmusthavecontributedpowerfullytodissolvethemoreancienttribalandfamilyorganisation。IftheChiefwhogaveandtheCeilewhoacceptedstockbelongedtothesameTribe，theeffectofthetransactionwastocreatearelationbetweenthem，notindeedaltogetherunlikethatoftribalconnection，butstillmateriallydifferentfromitinmanyrespectsandmuchmoretotheadvantageofthechieftain。ButthesuperiorfromwhomamantookstockwasnotalwaystheChiefofhisownSeptorTribe。SofarastheBrehonlawcanbesaidtoshowanyfavourtothenewsystemofvassalage，itencouragesitbetweennaturalchiefandnaturaltribesman；and，ontheotherhand，itputsdifficultiesinitswaywhenthereisanattempttoestablishitbetweenatribesmanandastrangeChief。ButthereseemtobeabundantadmissionsthatfreemendidoccasionallycommendthemselvesinthiswaytosuperiorsotherthantheirChiefs。averynobleman，asIsaidbefore，isassumedtobeasarulerichincattle，anditappearstohavebeenanobjectwitheveryonetodispersehisherdsbythepracticeofgivingstock。Theenrichedpeasantwhowasonhiswaytobeennobled，theBo-Aire，seemstohavehadCeileswhoacceptedstockfromhim，aswellashadthenobleshigherindegree。Accordingly，thenewgroupsformedoftheLordandhisVassals——ifwemaysomewhatantedatetheselastwords——weresometimeswhollydistinctfromtheoldgroupscomposedoftheChiefandhisClan。Nor，again，wasthenewrelationconfinedtoAires，ornoblemen，andCeiles，orfreebutnon-nobletribesmen。
　　TheBo-Airecertainly，andapparentlythehigherChiefsalso，acceptedstockonoccasionfromchieftainsmoreexaltedthanthemselves；andintheendto’givestock’cametomeanthesamethingastoassertfeudalsuperiority，andto’acceptstock’thesamething，whichinthelanguageofothersocietieswascalled’commendation。’Itisstrongevidenceofthesoundnessoftheconclusionsreachedoflateyearsbyhistoricalscholarsand，amongothers，byMrBryce，astothedeepandwideinfluenceexercisedbytheRomanEmpire，eveninitslaterform，thatofcoursebyafictiontheBrehonlawrepresentstheKingofIrelandas’acceptingstock’fromtheEmperor。’WhentheKingofEriniswithoutopposition’——thatis，astheexplanationruns，whenheholdstheportsofDublin，Waterford，andLimerick，whichwereusuallyinthehandsoftheDanes——’hereceivesstockfromtheKingoftheRomans’S。M。，ii。225。Thecommentarygoesontosaythatsometimes’itisbythesuccessorofPatrickthatthestockisgiventotheKingofErin；’andthisremarkablepassageseemstoshowthatanIrishwriterspokeofthesuccessorofStPatrick，whereawriterofthesameapproximateperiodinEnglandorontheEuropeanContinentwouldassuredlyhavespokenofthePope。
　　IhopeitisunnecessaryformetoinsistontheinterestwhichattachestothispartoftheBrehonlaw，ithasbeennotuncommon，upontheevidencefurnishedbytheusagesoftheScottishHighlanders，sharplytocontrastCeltictribalcustomswithfeudalrules；anddoubtlessbetweenthesecustomsandfeudalisminitsperfectedstatetherearedifferencesofthegreatestimportance。Yet，ifthetestimonyoftheBrehontractsmaybetrusted，suchdifferencesarose，notfromessentialdistinctions，but，insomemeasureatallevents，fromdistinctionsofdegreeincomparativesocialdevelopment。Thegermsoffeudalismlaydeepinthemoreancientsocialforms，andwerereadytoasserttheirvitalityeveninacountrylikeIreland，which，afteritwasonceChristianised，canhaveborrowednexttonoinstitutionsfromitsneighbours，cutoffasitwasfromtheContinentbydistance，andfromEnglandbystubbornnationalrepulsion。Itisalsoworthyofobservationthatthisnaturalgrowthoffeudalismwasnot，assomeeminentrecentwritershavesupposed，entirelydistinctfromtheprocessbywhichtheauthorityoftheChieforLordovertheTribeorVillagewasextended，butratherformedpartofit。Whiletheunappropriatedwaste-landswerefallingintohisdomain，thevillagersortribesmenwerecomingthroughnaturalagenciesunderhispersonalpower。
　　TheIrishpracticeof’givingstock’seemstomealsotoconnectitselfwithanothersetofphenomenawhichhavegenerallybeenthoughttobelongtoaverydifferentstageofhistory。Weobtainfromthelaw-tractsapictureofanaristocracyofwealthinitsmostprimitiveform；andweseethatthepossessionofthiswealthgavethenoblesanimmensepoweroverthenon-noblefreemenwhohadnothingbuttheirland。CaesarseemstometobeclearlyreferringtothesamestateofrelationsintheCelticsistersociety，whenhespeaksoftheGaulishchiefs，theEquites，havingoneprincipalsourceoftheirinfluenceinthenumberoftheirdebtors。B。G。，i。4；B。G。，vi。13。Now，youwillrememberhowuniformly，whenourknowledgeoftheancientworldcommences，wefindplebeianclassesdeeplyindebtedtoaristocraticorders。AtthebeginningofAthenianhistorywefindtheAtheniancommonaltythebondslavesthroughdebtoftheEupatrids；atthebeginningofRomanhistorywefindtheRomanCommonsinmoneybondagetothePatricians。Thefacthasbeenaccountedforinmanyways，andithasbeenplausiblysuggestedthatitwastheoccurrenceofrepeatedbadseasonswhichplacedthesmallfarmersoftheAtticandRomanterritoryatthemercyofwealthynobles。ButtheexplanationisimperfectunlesswekeepinmindthechieflessonoftheseBrehontracts，andrecollectthattherelativeimportanceofLandandCapitalhasbeenalteringthroughouthistory。ThegeneralpropositionthatLandislimitedinquantityandisdistinguishedbythislimitationfromallothercommoditieswhicharepracticallycapableofindefinitemultiplication，hasalwaysofcoursebeenabstractedlytrue；but，likemanyotherprinciplesofPoliticalEconomy，itsvaluedependsonthecircumstancestowhichitisapplied。Inveryancienttimeslandwasadrug，whilecapitalwasextremelyperishable，addedtowiththegreatestdifficulty，andlodgedinveryfewhands。Theproportionateimportanceofthetworequisitesofcultivationchangedveryslowly，anditisonlyquiterecentlythatinsomecountriesithasbeenwell-nighreversed。Theownershipoftheinstrumentsoftillageotherthanthelanditselfwasthus，inearlyagriculturalcommunities，apowerofthefirstorder，and，asitmaybebelievedthatastockoftheprimitivecapitallargerthanusualwasverygenerallyobtainedbyplunder，wecanunderstandthatthesestocksweremostlyinthehandsofnobleclasseswhoseoccupationwaswar，andwhoatalleventshadamonopolyoftheprofitsofoffice。
　　Theadvanceofcapitalatusuriousinterest，andthehelplessdegradationoftheborrowers，werethenaturalresultsofsucheconomicalconditions。ForthehonouroftheobscureandforgottenBrehonwritersoftheCain-SaerrathandtheCain-Aigillne，letitnotbeforgottenthattheirundertakingwasessentiallythesameasthatwhichwentfartoimmortaliseonegreatAthenianlegislator。BytheirpreciseanddetailedstatementsoftheproportionwhichistobepreservedbetweenthestockwhichtheChiefsuppliesandthereturnswhichthetenantpays，theyplainlyintendtointroducecertaintyandequityintoanaturallyoppressivesystem。Solon，dealingwithastateofsocietyinwhichcoinedmoneyhadprobablynotlongtakentheplaceofsomethinglikethe’seds’oftheBrehonlaw，hadnoexpedientopentohimbutthedebasementofthecurrencyandthecancellationofdebts；buthewasattackingthesameevilastheBrehonlawyers，andequallyinterferingwiththatfreedomofcontractwhichwearsaverydifferentaspectaccordingtotheconditionofthesocietyinwhichitprevails。
　　ThegreatpartplayedintheBrehonlawbyCattleastheoldestformofCapitaloughtfurthertoleavenodoubtoftheoriginalobjectsofthesystemof’eric’-fines，orpecuniarycompositionforviolentcrime。AsIsaidbefore，noIrishinstitutionwassostronglydenouncedbyEnglishmenasthis，orwithsogreatashowofrighteousindignation。Asmembersofawealthycommunity，longaccustomedtoastronggovernment，theywererevoltedpartlybyitsapparentinadequacyandpartlytheunjustimpunitywhichitseemedtogivetotherichmanandtodenytothepoor。AlthoughtheEnglishsystemofcriminalpenaltieswhichtheysoughttosubstitutefortheIrishsystemofcompositionswouldnowadaysbedescribedbyanordinarywriterinprettymuchasdarkcoloursasthoseusedbySpenserandDavisfortheIrishinstitution，itisverypossiblethatinthesixteenthcenturyitwouldhavebeenanadvantagetoIrelandtohavetheEnglishprocedureandtheEnglishpunishments。Thereismuchevidencethattheusefulnessof’eric’-fineshaddiedout，andthattheyunjustlyprofitedtherichandpowerful。ButthatonlyshowsthattheconfusionsofIrelandhadkeptalivebeyonditstimeaninstitutionwhichinthebeginninghadbeenagreatstepforwardsfrombarbarism。Ifthemodernwriterswhohavespokenharshlyofthesepecuniarycompositionshadcomeuponasetofusagesbelongingtoasocietyinwhichtribewasperpetuallystrugglingwithtribe，andinwhichlifewasheldextraordinarilycheap，andhadfoundthat，bythiscustomarylaw，theseptorfamilytowhichtheperpetratorofacrimebelongedforfeitedaconsiderableportionofitslauds，Iamnotsurethattheywouldnothaveregardedtheinstitutionasshowingfortheageanextremelystrictpolice。Butintheinfancyofsocietyafineonthecultivatingcommunities，ofthekindafterwardscalledpecuniary，wasamuchsevererpunishmentthantheforfeitureofland。Theyhadplentyoflandwithintheirdomains，butveryslightappliancesforcultivatingit；anditwasoutoftheselastthatcompositionswerepaid。Thesystemofcourselostitsmeaningasthecommunitiesbrokeupandaspropertybecameunequallydivided。Initsday，nevertheless，ithadbeenagreatachievement，andtherearetracesofiteverywhere，eveninRomanlaw，where，however，itisameresurvival。
　　BeforeIquitthesubjectletmesaysomethingontheetymologyofthefamousword，Feodum，Feud，orFief。ThederivationfromEmphyteusisisnowaltogetherabandoned，andthereisgeneral，thoughnotquiteuniversal，agreementthatFeodumisdescendedfromoneorotherofthenumerousfamilyofoldTeutonictermswhichhavetheirpresentrepresentativeinthemodernGermanVieh，’cattle。’ThereissupposedtohavebeenmuchthesametransmutationofmeaningwhichoccurredwiththeanalogousLatinword。Pecunia，alliedtopecus，signifiedfirstmoney，andthenpropertygenerally；theRomanlawyers，infact，tellusthatitisthemostcomprehensivetermforallaman’sproperty，’andinthesameway’feodum’issupposedtohavecometomean’property，’fromhavingoriginallymeant’cattle。’Theinvestigationswehavebeenpursuingmayperhaps，however，suggestthattheconnectionof’feodum’withcattleiscloserandmoredirectthanthistheoryassumes。DrSullivan，Ioughttoadd，assignsadifferentoriginto’feodum’fromanyhithertoputforwardIntrod。p。ccxxvi。HeclaimsitasaCelticword，andconnectsitwithfuidhir，thenameofaclassofdenizensontribalterritorywhosestatusIamabouttodiscuss。
　　TheterritoryofeveryIrishtribeappearstohavehadsettledonit，besidestheSaerandDaerCeiles，certainclassesofpersonswhoseconditionwasmuchnewertoslaverythanthatofthefreetribesmanwho，byacceptingstockfromtheChief，hadsunklowestfromhisoriginalpositioninthetribalsociety。
　　Theyarecalledbyvariousnames，Sencleithes，Bothachs，andFuidhirs；andthetwolastclassesareagainsubdivided，liketheCeiles，intoSaerandDaerBothachs，andSaerandDaerFuidhirs。
　　Thereisevidenceinthetracts，andespeciallyintheunpublishedtractcalledthe’CorusFine，’thattheserviledependants，likethefreemenoftheterritory，hadafamilyortribalorganisation；andindeedallfragmentsofasocietylikethatofancientIrelandtakemoreorlesstheshapeoftheprevailingmodel。Thepositionoftheclasses，obscurelyindicatedinDomesdayandotherancientEnglishrecordsasCotwiiandBordarii，wasprobablyverysimilartothatoftheSencleithesandBothachs；andinbothcasesithasbeensuspectedthattheseservileordershadanorigindistinctfromthatofthedominantrace，andbelongedtotheolderoraboriginalinhabitantsofthecountry。Familiesorsub-tribesformedoutofthemwereprobablyhewersofwoodanddrawersofwatertotherulingtribeoritssubdivisions。OtherswerecertainlyinaconditionofspecialservitudetotheChiefordependenceonhim；
　　andtheselastwereeitherengagedincultivatinghisimmediatedomain-landandherdinghiscattle，orwereplantedbyhiminseparatesettlementsonthewastelandofthetribe。TherentorservicewhichtheypaidtohimfortheuseofthislandwasapparentlydeterminablesolelybythepleasureoftheChief。
　　Muchthemostimportant，andmuchthemostinterestingoftheseclassesfromthehistoricalpointofview，wasthatjustdescribedassettledbytheChiefontheunappropriatedtriballands。Indeed，ithasbeensuggestedthatitsfortunesareidenticalwiththoseofthegreatbulkoftheIrishpeople。ItconsistedoftheFuidhirs，thestrangersorfugitivesfromotherterritories，men，infact，whohadbrokentheoriginaltribalbondwhichgavethemaplaceinthecommunity，andwhohadtoobtainanotherasbesttheymightinanewtribeandanewplace。
　　TheBrehonlawshowsbyabundantevidencethattheclassmusthavebeenanumerousone。Thedesertionoftheirlandsbyfamiliesorportionsoffamiliesisrepeatedlyspokenof。Undercertaincircumstances，indeed，theruptureofthetribalbondandtheflightofthosewhobreakitareeventualitiesdistinctlycontemplatedbythelaw。IntheBrehonlaw，asinotherancientjuridicalsystems，thecorporateresponsibilityoftribes，sub-tribes，andfamiliestakestheplaceofthatresponsibilityforcrime，andeventosomeextentofcivilobligation，which，undermoderninstitutions，pressesupontheindividual。Buttheresponsibilitymightbepreventedfromattachingbycompellingorinducingamemberofthegroup，habituallyviolentorvowedtorevenge，towithdrawfromitscircle；andtheBookofAicillgivesthelegalprocedurewhichistobeobservedintheexpulsion，thetribepayingcertainfinestotheChiefandtheChurchandproclaimingthefugitive。Suchprovisionsassumeacertainorderinthesocietytowhichtheyapply；yetweknowasafactthatformanycenturiesitwasviolentlydisordered。Theresultwasprobablytofillthecountrywith’brokenmen，’andsuchmencouldonlyfindahomeandprotectionbybecomingFuidhirtenants。Everything，inshort，whichtendedtodisturbtheIrelandoftheBrehonlawstendedtomultiplythisparticularclass。
　　Now，theFuidhirtenantwasexclusivelyadependantoftheChief，andwaSthroughhimaloneconnectedwiththeTribe。Theresponsibilityforcrime，whichinthenaturalstateofIrishsocietyattachedtotheFamilyorTribe，attached，inthecaseoftheFuidhir，totheChief，whoinfactbecametothisclassoftenantsthatwhichtheiroriginaltribesmenorkindredhadbeen。