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