Moreover，thelandwhichtheycultivatedintheirplaceofrefugewasnottheirsbuthis。Theywerethefirst’tenantsatwill，knowntoIreland，andthereisnodoubtthattheywerealwaystheoreticallyrackrentable。The’threerents，’saystheSenchusMor，arethe’rackrentfromapersonofastrangetribe，afairrentfromoneofthetribe，andthestipulatedrentwhichispaidequallybythetribeandthestrangetribe。’The’personfromastrangetribe’isundoubtedlytheFuidhir；andthoughtheIrishexpressiontranslated’rackrent’cannot，ofcourse，intheancientstateofrelationbetweenpopulationandland，denoteanextremecompetitionrent，itcertaintyindicatesanextremerent；
　　sinceinoneoftheglossesitisgraphicallycomparedtothemilkofacowwhichiscompelledtogivemilkeverymonthtotheendoftheyear，Atthesametimethereisnoreasontosupposethat，inthefirstinstance，theFuidhirtenantswereoppressivelytreatedbytheChiefs。TheChiefhadastronginterestinencouragingthem；’hebringsinFuidhirs，’saysoneofthetracts，toincreasehiswealth。’TheinterestsreallyinjuredwerethoseoftheTribe，whichmayhavebecomestrongerfordefenceorattackbytheadditiontothepopulationoftheterritory，butwhichcertainlysufferedasabodyofjointproprietorsbythecurtailmentofthewastelandavailableforpasture。TheprocessbeforedescribedbywhichthestatusofthetribesmendeclinedproportionatelytothegrowthoftheChiefs’
　　powers，musthavebeenindirectlyhastenedinseveralwaysbytheintroductionofFuidhirs。SuchindicationsofthecourseofchangeastheBrehonlawsfurnisharecuriouslyinharmonywithapassagefromaworkrecentlypublished，which，amidmuchothervaluablematter，givesamostvividpictureofagriculturallifeinthebackwardIndianprovinceofOrissa。MrHunter，thewriter，isspeakingoftherelationoflandlordandtenant；butasthe’hereditarypeasantry’referredtohave，asagainsttheirlandlord，rightsdefinedbylaw，theyarenotwithoutanalogytothetribesmenofanancientIrishterritory。’Themigratoryhusbandman，’theFuidhirofmodernIndia，’notonlylosthishereditarypositioninhisownvillage，buthewasanobjectofdislikeandsuspicionamongthenewcommunityintowhichhethrusthimself。Foreveryaccessionofcultivatorstendedtobetterthepositionofthelandlord，andprotantotoinjurethatoftheoldercultivators。Solongasthelandonanestatecontinuedtobetwiceasmuchasthehereditarypeasantrycouldtill，theresidenthusbandmenwereoftoomuchimportancetobebulliedorsqueezedintodiscontent。Butoncealargebodyofimmigrantcultivatorshadgrownup，thisprimitivecheckonthelandlords’exactionswasremoved。Themigratorytenants，therefore，notonlylosttheirpositionintheiroldvillages，buttheywereharassedintheirnewsettlements。Worsethanall，theyweretoacertainextentconfoundedwiththelandlesslowcasteswho，destituteofthelocalconnectionssokeenlyprizedinruralsocietyastheevidencesofrespectability，wanderedaboutashiredlabourersandtemporarycultivatorsofsurplusvillagelands。’Hunter，’Orissa，’i。57，58
　　YouwillperhapshavedivinedthegroundofthespecialattentionwhichhasbeenclaimedfortheseFuidhirtenants，andwillbepreparedtohearthattheirpeculiarstatushasbeensupposedtohaveabearingonthoseagrariandifficultieswhichhaverecurredwithalmostmysteriousfrequencyinthehistoryofIreland。ItiscertainlyastrikingcircumstancethatinthefardistanceofIrishtraditionwecomeuponconflictsbetweenrent-payingandrent-receivingtribes——that，atthefirstmomentwhenourinformationrespectingIrelandbecomesfullandtrustworthy，ourinformantsdwellwithindignantemphasisonthe’racking’oftenantsbytheIrishChiefs——andthattherelationofIrishlandlordandIrishtenant，afterbeingrecognisedeversincethebeginningofthecenturyasasocialdifficultyofthefirstmagnitude，finallybecameapoliticaldifficulty，whichwassettledonlytheotherday。IdonotsaythatthereisnotathreadofconnectionbetweenthesestagesofIrishagrarianhistory，buttherearetwooppositeerrorsintowhichwemaybebetrayedifweassumethethreadtohavebeenuniformthroughout。
　　Inthefirstplace，wemaybetemptedtoantedatetheinfluenceofthoseeconomicallawswhichlatterlyhadsuchpowerfuloperationinIrelanduntiltheirenergywaswell-nighspentthroughtheconsequencesofthegreatfamineof1845-6。Anoverflowingpopulationandalimitedareaofcultivablelandhadmuchtodo，andprobablymorethananythingelsetodo，withtheconditionofIrelandduringthatperiod；butneithertheonenortheotherwasacharacteristicofthecountryattheendofthesixteenthcentury。Next，wemayperhapsbeinclined，assomewritersofgreatmeritseemtometobe，topost-datethesocialchangeswhichcausedsolargeaportionofthesoilofIrelandtobeplacedundertheuncontrolledLawoftheMarket，or，toadopttheordinaryphraseology，whichmultiplied’tenantsatwill’toanunusualextent。Doubtless，ifwehadtofoundanopinionastothesecausesexclusivelyonancientIrishlaw，andonmodernEnglishrealpropertylaw，weshouldperhapscometotheconclusionthatanarchaicsystem，barelyrecognisingabsoluteownership，hadbeenviolentlyandunnaturallyreplacedbyasystemoffarmoremodernstampbaseduponabsolutepropertyinland。But，bytheendofthesixteenthcentury，ourevidenceisthattheChiefshadalreadysomuchpowerovertheirtenantsthatanyadditiontoitisscarcelyconceivable。’TheLordsofland，’
　　saysEdmundSpenser，writingnotlaterthan1596，’donotthereusetosetouttheirlandtofarme，fortearmeofyears，totheirtenants，butonlyfromyearetoyeare，orduringpleasure，neitherindeedwilltheIrishtenantorhusbandmanotherwisetakehislandthansolongashelisthimselfe。Thereasonthereofinthetenantis，forthatthelandlordsthereusemostshamefullytoracketheirtenants，layinguponthemcoinandliveryatpleasure，andexactingofthembesideshiscovenantswhathepleaseth。Sothatthepoorehusbandmaneitherdarenotbindehimselfetohimforlongertearme，orthinketh，byhiscontinualllibertyofchange，tokeepehislandlordtheratherinawefromwrongingofhim。Andthereasonwhythelandlordwillnolongercovenantwithhimis，forthathedaylylookethafterchangeandalteration，andhoverethinexpectationofnewworlds。’SirJohnDavis，writingratherbefore1613，usedstillstrongerlanguage：
　　’TheLordisanabsoluteTyrantandtheTennantaveryslaveandvillain，andinonerespectmoremiserablethanBondSlaves。ForcommonlytheBondSlaveisfedbyhisLord，butheretheLordisfedbyhisBondSlave。’
　　ThereisverylittleincommonbetweenthemiserablepositionoftheIrishtenantheredescribedandthefootingofeventhebasersortofCeiles，orvilleins，whohadtakenstockfromtheChief。IftheBrehonlawistobetrusted，theDaerCeilewastobecommiserated，ratherbecausehehadderogatedfromhisrightsasafreetribesmanofthesamebloodwiththeChief，thanbecausehehadexposedhimselftounbridledoppression。Besidespayingduesmoreofthenatureofmodernrent，hecertainlystoodunderthatunfortunateliabilityofsupplyingperiodicalrefectionforhisChiefandhisfollowers。
　　ButnotonlywastheMountofhisduessettledbythelaw，buttheverysizeofthejointsandthequalityofthealewithwhichheregaledhisChiefwereminutelyandexpresslyregulated。And，ifoneprovisionofthelawisclearerthananother，itisthatthenormalperiodoftherelationoftenancyorvassalagewasnotoneyear，butsevenyears。How，then，arewetoexplainthisdiscrepancy？IstheexplanationthattheBrehontheoryneverinrealityquitecorrespondedwiththefacts？Itmaybesotosomeextent，butthecarefulstudentoftheBrehontractswillbeinclinedtothinkthatthegeneralbiasoftheirwriterswasrathertowardsexaggerationoftheprivilegesofChiefsthantowardsOverstatementoftheimmunitiesoftribesmen。Isit，ontheotherhand，likelythat，assomepatrioticIrishmenhaveasserted，SpenserandDaviswereundertheinfluenceofEnglishprejudice，andgrosslymisrepresentedthefactsofIrishlifeintheirday？Plentyofprejudiceofacertainkindisdisclosedbytheirwritings，andIdoubtnotthattheywerecapableofoccasionallymisunderstandingwhattheysaw。Nothing，however，whichtheyhavewrittensuggeststhattheywerelikelywilfullytomisdescribefactsopentotheirobservation。IcanquiteconceivethatsomethingsintherelationsoftheChiefsandtenantsescapedthem，possiblyagooddealoffreely-givenloyaltyononeside，andofkindlinessandgoodhumouredjovialityontheother。ButthattheIrishChiefhadintheirdaythepowerorrightwhichtheyattributetohimcannotseriouslybequestioned。
　　ThepoweroftheIrishChiefsandtheirseveritytotheirtenantsinthesixteenthcenturybeingadmitted，theyhavebeenaccountedfor，asIbeforestated，bysupposingthattheNormannobleswhobecamegraduallyclothedwithIrishchieftainships——
　　theFitzgeralds，theBurkes，andtheBarrys——abusedanauthoritywhichinnativehandswouldhavebeensubjecttonaturallimitations，andthussetanevilexampletoalltheChiefsofIreland。Theexplanationhasnottheantecedentimprobabilitywhichitmightseemtohaveatfirstsight，butI
　　amnotawarethatthereispositiveevidencetosustainit。IoweafarmoreplausibletheoryofthecauseofchangetoDrSullivan，who，inhisIntroductionp。cxxvi，hassuggestedthatitwasdeterminedbythesteadymultiplicationofFuidhirtenants。Itmustberecollectedthatthisclassofpersonswouldnotbeprotectedbytheprimitiveornaturalinstitutionsspringingoutofcommunityofblood。TheFuidhirwasnotatribesmanbutanalien。Inallsocietiescementedtogetherbykinshipthepositionofthepersonwhohaslostorbrokenthebondofunionisalwaysextraordinarilymiserable。Hehasnotonlylosthisnaturalplaceinthem，buttheyhavenoroomforhimanywhereelse。ThewretchednessoftheoutcastinIndia，understoodasthemanwhohaslostorbeenexpelledfromcaste，doesnotarisefromhishavingbeendegradedfromahighertoalowersocialstanding，butfromhishavingnostandingwhatever，therebeingnootherorderofsocietyopentoreceivehimwhenhehasdescendedfromhisown。ItwastruethattheFuidhir，thoughhehadlostthemanifoldprotectionofhisfamilyandtribe，wasnotactuallyexposedtoviolentwrong。FromthathewasprotectedbythenewChieftowhomhehadattachedhimself，butbetweenhimandthisChieftherewasnothing。TheprinciplewouldalwaysbethathewasatthemercyoftheChief。Attheutmost，someusagesfavourabletohimmightestablishthemselvesthroughlapseoftime，buttheywouldhavenoneoftheobligatoryforcebelongingtotheruleswhichdefinedtherightsoftheChiefinrespectofhisSaer-stockandDaerstocktenants。Wecanseethatseveralofthedutiescorrespondingtotheserightswereofakindtoinviteabuse；muchmorecertainlywouldobligationsanalogoustothem，butwhollyimposedbythepleasureoftheChief，becomecruellyoppressive。The’refections’oftheBrehonlawwould，byamiserabledegradation，becometoborrowthelanguageofSpenserandDaviscoinandlivery，cuttings，cosherings，andspendings，inthecaseoftheFuidhirs。Meanwhiletherewerecausesatwork，powerfullyandforlongperiodsoftime，toincreasethenumbersofthisclass。EventhoseIrishmenwhobelievethatinthedistantpasttherewasonceatolerablywell-orderedIrelandadmitthatformanycenturiestheircountrywasrackedwithperpetualdisturbance。Danishpiracies，intestinefeuds，Anglo-Normanattemptsatconquestneverconsistentlycarriedoutorthoroughlycompleted，theveryexistenceofthePale，andaboveallthepolicydirectedfromitofplayingoffagainstoneanothertheChiefsbeyonditsborders，areallowedbyalltohavedistractedtheislandwithcivilwar，howevertheresponsibilityforitistobeapportioned。Buttheprocessisonewhichmusthavebrokenuptribesfarandwide，andbrokentribesimplyamultitudeofbrokenmen。Eveninbriefintervalsofpeacetheviolenthabitsproducedbyconstantdisorderwouldbringaboutthefrequentexpulsionbyfamiliesofmembersforwhomtheyrefusedtoremainresponsible，andinthecommonereventualityofwarwholefragmentswouldbefromtimetotimetornawayfromtribesandtheiratomsscatteredineverypartofIreland。itistherefore，aconjecturepossessingaveryhighdegreeofplausibility，thatthetenantryoftheIrishChiefswhosesufferingsprovokedtheindignationofSpenserandDavisconsistedlargelyofFuidhirs。
　　Theexplanationmay，however，becarriedbeyondthispoint。
　　YouwillbearinmindthepassagequotedbymefromHunter’s’Orissa，’whichshowshowatenantryenjoyinghereditaryrightsisinjured，evenunderaGovernmentwhichsternlycompelspeaceandorder，byalargeimmigrationofcultivatorsdependentonthelandlordorZemnindar。Theynarrowtheavailablewastelandbytheirappropriations；and，thoughtheydonotcompetedirectlyfortheancientlycultivatedlandwiththetenantsenjoyinghereditaryrights，theygreatlyraiseinthelongrunthestandardofrent，atthesametimethattheyarmthelandlordwiththosepowersofexactingitwhichinancientIrelandconsistedinthestronghandoftheChiefhimself，andwhichconsist，inmodernIndia，inthemoneywhichputsinmotionthearmofthelaw。IhavenodoubtwhateverthatagreatmultiplicationofFuidhirtenantswouldalwaysseriouslyalterfortheworsethepositionofthetenantsbySaer-stockandI
　　Dear-stocktenure。###第18章AncientDivisionsoftheFamily
　　’BeforetheestablishmentoftheEnglishcommonlaw，all
　　thepossessionswithintheIrishterritoriesraneitherincourse
　　ofTanistryorincourseofGavelkind。EverySignoryorChiefry
　　withtheportionoflandwhichpassedwithitwentwithout
　　partitiontotheTanist，whoalwayscameinbyelectionorwith
　　thestronghand，andnotbydescent；butallinferiortenanties
　　werepartiblebetweenmalesinGavelkind。’SirJ。Davis’
　　Reports，’LeCasdeGavelkind，’Hil。3，Jac。1，beforeallthe
　　Judges。
　　Thispassageoccursinoneofthefamouscasesinwhichthe
　　Anglo-IrishJudgesaffirmedtheillegalityofthenativeIrish
　　tenuresofland。TheydeclaredtheEnglishcommonlawtobein
　　forceinIreland，andthenceforwardtheeldestsonsucceeded，as
　　heir-at-law，bothtolandswhichwereattachedtoaSignoryand
　　toestateswhichhadbeendividedaccordingtothepeculiarIrish
　　customherecalledGavelkind。TheJudgesthoroughlyknewthat
　　theyweremakingarevolution，andtheyprobablythoughtthat
　　theyweresubstitutingacivilisedinstitutionforasetof
　　mischievoususagesproperonlyforbarbarians。Yetthereis
　　strongreasonforthinkingthatTanistryistheformof
　　successionfromwhichPrimogenituredescended，andthattheIrish
　　Gavelkind，whichtheysharplydistinguishedfromtheGavelkindof
　　Kent，wasnothingmorethananarchaicformofthissame
　　institution，ofwhichCourtsinEnglandhavealwaystaken
　　judicialnotice，andwhichprevailedfarmorewidelyonthe
　　EuropeanContinentthansuccessionbyPrimogeniture。
　　Itwillbeconvenientthatweshouldfirstconsiderthe
　　so-calledGavelkindofIreland，whichisthusdescribedbySir
　　JohnDavis：’BytheIrishcustomofGavelkind，theinferior
　　tenantieswerepartibleamongallthemalesoftheSept，both
　　BastardsandLegitimate；and，afterpartitionmade，ifanyoneof
　　theSepthaddied，hisportionwasnotdividedamonghissonnes，
　　buttheChiefoftheSeptmadeanewpartitionofallthelands
　　belongingtothatSept，andgaveeveryonehispartaccordingto
　　hisantiquity。’
　　Thisstatementoccasionssomeperplexity，whichdoesnot，
　　however，arisefromitsbeingantecedentlyincredible。Itis
　　made，youwillobserve，notoftheClanorTribeinitslargest
　　extension，butoftheSept。Thefirstwasalargeand
　　miscellaneousbody，composedingreatpartofmenwhose
　　relationshipofbloodwiththeChiefandthemassoffree
　　tribesmen，wasamerefiction。Thelastwasamuchsmallerbody，
　　whoseproximitytoacommonancestorwascloseenoughtoadmitof
　　theirkinshipeitherbeingafactorbeingbelievedtobeafact。
　　ItapparentlycorrespondedtothesmallHighlandcommunities
　　observedinScotland，byanEnglishofficerofEngineersabout
　　1730。’TheytheHighlandersaredividedintotribesorclans
　　underchiefsorchieftains，andeachclanisagaindividedinto
　　branchesfromthemainstock，whohavechieftainsoverthem。
　　TheseareSubdividedintosmallerbranches，offiftyorsixty
　　men，whodeducetheiroriginalfromtheirparticularchieftains。
　　QuotedbySkene，’Highlanders，’i。p。156。Suchabody，asI
　　havealreadystated，seemstobetheJointFamilywellknownto
　　theHindoos，butcontinuedasacorporateunitwhichisvery
　　rarelythecaseinIndia，throughseveralsuccessive
　　generations。Thereisnodifferenceinprinciple，andlittlein
　　practicaleffect，betweenthemodeofsuccessiondescribedby
　　DavisandthewayinwhichaHindooJointFamilyisaffectedby
　　thedeathofoneofitsmembers。Allthepropertybeingheldin
　　common，andallearningsbeingbroughtintothe’commonchestor
　　purse，’thelapseofanyonelifewouldhavetheeffect，
　　potentiallyifnotactually，ofdistributingthedeadman’sshare
　　amongallthekindredunitedinthefamilygroup。Andif，ona
　　dissolutionoftheJointFamily，thedistributionofitseffects
　　werenotpercapitabutperstirpes，thiswouldcorrespondto
　　whatDavisprobablymeanswhenhedescribestheChiefasgiving
　　toeachman’accordingtohisantiquity。’
　　Thespecialnoveltyoftheinformationsuppliedtousbythe
　　ancientIrishlawconsistsinitsrevealingtousasocietyof
　　Aryanrace，settled，indeed，ontheland，andmuchinfluencedby
　　itssettlement，butpreservinganexceptionalnumberoftheideas
　　andrulesbelongingtothetimewhenkinshipandnotthelandis
　　thebasisofsocialunion。Thereis，therefore，nothing
　　extraordinaryinourfinding，amongtheancientusagesofthe
　　Irish，aninstitutionsavouringsomuchofthe’natural
　　communism’oftheprimitiveformsofpropertyasthisIrish
　　Gavelkind。This’naturalcommunism，’Ihaverepeatedlyurged，
　　doesnotarisefromanytheoryor*prioriassumptionastothe
　　bestorjustestmodeofdividingthelandofacommunity，but
　　fromthesimpleimpossibility，accordingtoprimitivenotions，of
　　makingadistinctionbetweenanumberofkinsmensolelyconnected
　　bytheirrealorassumeddescentfromacommonancestor。The
　　naturalsolventofthiscommunismisthelanditselfuponwhich
　　thekindredaresettled。Asthecommonancestryfadesawayinto
　　indistinctness，andthecommunitygetstoconsideritselflessan
　　assemblageofblood-relationsthanabodyofco-villagers，each
　　householdclingswithincreasingtenacitytotheallotmentwhich
　　ithasonceobtained，andre-divisionsofthelandamongthe
　　wholecommunity，whetheratfixedperiodsoratadeath，become
　　rarerandrarer，andatlastceasealtogether，orsurviveonlyas
　　atradition。Inthiswaythewidelydiffusedbutmodifiedformof
　　tribalsuccession，whichinEnglandiscalledGavelkind，isat
　　lastestablished；thedescendantsofthelatestholdertakehis