TheTribeandtheLandIthasbeenverycommonlybelievedthat，beforetheagrarianmeasuresofJamestheFirst，Irelandwasoneofthecountriesinwhichprivatepropertyinlandwasinvestedwithleastsacredness，andinwhichformsofownershipgenerallyconsideredasbarbarousmostextensivelyprevailed。SpenserandDaviscertainlysuggestthisopinion，andseveralmodernwritershaveadoptedit。TheBrehonlaw-tractsprove，however，thatitcanonlybereceivedwithconsiderablequalificationandmodification，andtheyshowthatprivateproperty，andespeciallyprivatepropertyinland，hadlongbeenknowninIrelandattheepochtowhichtheybelong，havingcomeintoexistenceeitherthroughthenaturaldisintegrationofcollectiveownershiporthroughtheseveranceofparticularestatesfromthegeneraltribaldomain。Neverthelessitcannot，Ithink，bedoubtedthatattheperiodtowhichthetractsareanindexmuchlandwasheldthroughoutIrelandunderrulesorcustomssavouringoftheancientcollectiveenjoyment，andthisIunderstandDrSullivantoallow。Introduction，p。cxliv
PartoftheevidenceofthefactjuststatedistolerablyfamiliartostudentsofIrishhistory。AtthebeginningoftheseventeenthcenturytheAnglo-IrishJudgesdeclaredtheEnglishCommonLawtobeinforcethroughoutIreland，andfromthedateofthisdecisionalllandinthecountrydescendedtotheeldestsonofthelastowner，unlessitsdevolutionwasotherwisedeterminedbysettlementorwill。InSirJohnDavis’sreportofthecaseandoftheargumentsbeforetheCourt，itisrecitedthathithertoalllandinIrelandhaddescendedeitherundertheruleofTanistryorundertherulesofGavelkind。ThesystemofinheritanceherecalledGavelkindisthusdescribed：WhenalandowningmemberofanIrishSeptdied，itschiefmadeare-distributionofallthelandsoftheSept。Hedidnotdividetheestateofthedeadmanamonghischildren，butusedittoincreasetheallotmentsofthevarioushouseholdsofwhichtheSeptwasmadeup。TheJudgestreatedbothTanistryandGavelkindassystemsofsuccessionafterdeath，ofapeculiarlybarbarousandmischievouskind；and，assystemsofsuccession，Ishallconsiderthemhereafter。Butallsystemsofsuccessionafterdeathbearacloserelationtoancientmodesofenjoymentduringlife；forinstance，intheJointUndividedFamilyoftheHindoos，thestirpes，orstocks，whichareonlyknowntoEuropeanlawasbranchesofinheritors，areactualdivisionsofthefamily，andlivetogetherindistinctpartsofthecommondwelling。
’CalcuttaReview’July1874，p。208Theso-calledIrishGavelkindbelongstoaclassofinstitutionsverycommonintheinfancyoflaw；itisacontrivanceforsecuringcomparativeequalityamongthejointproprietorsofacommonfund。Theredistributionheretakesplaceatthedeathofaheadofahousehold；butifequalityweresecuredbywhatispracticallythesameprocess——viz。，re-divisionafterafixedperiodofyears——aninstitutionwouldbeproducedwhichhasnotquitediedoutofEuropeatthepresentmoment，andofwhichtherearetraditionsinalloldcountries。Atthesametimeihavenodoubtthat，whentheIrishGavelkindwasdeclaredillegal，itwasveryfarfrombeingtheonlysystemofsuccessionknowntoIrelandexceptTanistry，andithinkitprobablethatmanydifferentmodesofenjoymentandinheritancewereabolishedbythedecisiongivingthelandtotheeldestson。
Itwastheactualobservationofpeculiaragriculturalusages，specialmethodsofcultivation，andabnormalrulesoftenure，whichmainlyenabledG。L。VonMaurertorestoretheGermanMarktoknowledge；anditwasbyusingVonMaurer’sresultsashiskeythatNassewasabletodecipherthescatteredreferencestothe’AgriculturalCommunityoftheMiddleAges’inavarietyofEnglishdocuments。IventuretothinkthatthisclassofobservationhasnotbeencarriedfarenoughinIrelandtoyieldmaterialforaconfidentopinion，buttherecertainlyseemtobevestigesofancientcollectiveenjoymentintheextensiveprevalenceof’rundale’holdingsinpartsofthecountry。Underthissystemadefiniteareaoflandisoccupiedbyagroupoffamilies。Intheformnowmostcommon，thearablelandsareheldinseveralty，whilepastureandbogareincommon。
Butaslatelyasfiftyyearssince，caseswerefrequentinwhichthearablelandwasdividedintofarmswhichshiftedamongthetenant-familiesperiodically，andsometimesannually。Evenwhennosuchdivisionwasmade，awell-knownrelicoftheMark-system，asitshoweditselfinGermanyandEngland，wasoccasionallyfound：thearableportionoftheestateswascomposedofthreedifferentqualitiesofsoil，andeachtenanthadalotorlotsinthelandofeachquality，withoutreferencetoposition。WhatwasvirtuallythesamesystemoftenureprevailedquiterecentlyintheScottishHighlands。Ihaveascertainedthatthefamilieswhichformedthevillage-communitiesonlyjustextinctintheWesternHighlandshadthelandsofthevillagere-distributedamongthembylotatfixedintervalsoftime；andIgatherfromMrSkene’svaluablenoteon’TribeCommunitiesinScotland’
appendedtothesecondvolumeofhiseditionofFordun’sChronicle，thathebelievesthissystemofre-divisiontohavebeenonceuniversal，oratleastwidelyextended，amongtheScottishCelts。
ItistobeobservedthatsofarasIamabletolearntheIrishholdingsin’rundale’arenotformsofproperty，butmodesofoccupation。Thereisalwayssomepersonabovewhoislegallyownerofallthelandheldbythegroupoffamilies，andwho，theoretically，couldchangethemethodofholding，although，practically，popularfeelingwouldputthegreatestdifficultiesinhisway。Wemustbearinmind，however，thatarchaickindsoftenancyareconstantlyevidenceofancientformsofproprietorship。Thisissoincountriesinwhichsuperiorownershiphasarisenthroughthenaturalcourseofeventsthroughpurchasefromsmallallodialproprietors，throughcolonisationofvillagewaste-landsbecomeintimethelord’swaste，orinanearlierstateofsocietythroughthesinkingofwholecommunitiesofpeasantsintovilleinage，andthroughaconsequenttransformationofthelegaltheoryoftheirrights。Butallthisprocessofchangewouldbegravelymisconstruedifitweresupposedthat，becauseaChieforLordhadcometoberecognisedaslegalownerofthewholetribaldomain，orofgreatportionsofit，hethereforealteredtheaccustomedmethodsofoccupationandcultivation，orassomewouldevenseemtothinkhebeganatoncetoregardtheoccupyingpeasantryasmodernlesseesormoderntenantsatwill。Nodoubttheancienttypeofownershiplongservedasthemodelfortenancy；andthecommonholdings，dyingoutasproperty，survivedasoccupation。And，ifthiswerethecaseinothercountries，muchmorewoulditbesoinIreland，wherepropertyhaschangedhandssooftenandsoviolently；whereduringwholecenturies，theownersoflandneitherregarded，norwereinapositiontoregard，theoccupierssaveaspayersofrentanddues；andwheretheconceptionofalandlordactingonhislegalownershipwithaviewtoimprovementandincreaseofproductionisaltogethermodern。
ThechiefBrehonlaw-tract，whichsetsforththemutualrightsofthecollectivetribeandofindividualtribesmenorhouseholdsoftribesmeninrespectoftribalproperty，iscalledtheCorusBescna，andisprintedintheThirdVolumeoftheofficialedition。Itpresentsgreatdifficulties。IquiteagreewiththeEditorsthatthecommentaryandglossesconstantlycontradictandobscurethetext，eitherbecausethecommentatorsdidnotunderstanditorbecausetheybelongedtoalaterperiodandadifferentstageoflegalrelations。ButthemostseriousdoubtwhichoccurstothestudentofthetextarisesfromthestrongandpalpablebiasofthecompilertowardstheinterestsoftheChurch；indeed，partofthetractisavowedlydevotedtothelawofChurchpropertyandoftheorganisationofreligioushouses。Whenthiswriteraffirmsthat，undercertaincircumstances，atribesmanmaygrantorcontractawaytriballand，hisecclesiasticalleaningconstantlysuggestsadoubtastohislegaldoctrine。Doeshemeantolaydownthatthelandmaybepartedwithgenerallyandinfavourofanybody，oronlythatitmaybealienatedinfavouroftheChurch？Thisdifficultyofconstructionhasaninterestofitsown。IammyselfpersuadedthattheinfluenceoftheChristianChurchonlawhasbeenverygenerallysoughtforinawrongquarter，andthathistoriansoflawhavetoomuchoverlookeditsshareindiffusingtheconceptionsoffreecontract，individualproperty，andtestamentarysuccession，throughtheregionsbeyondtheRomanEmpirewhichwerepeopledbycommunitiesheldtogetherbytheprimitivetieofconsanguinity。ItisgenerallyagreedamongscholarsthatChurchmenintroducedtheseracestowillsandbequests；theBrehontractssuggesttomeatleastthat，alongwiththesacrednessofbequests，theyinsisteduponthesacrednessofcontracts；anditiswellknownthat，intheGermaniccountries，theirecclesiasticalsocietieswereamongtheearliestandlargestgranteesofpublicor’folk’landStubbs，’ConstitutionalHistory’，vol。i。p。154。TheWill，theContract，andtheSeparateOwnershipwereinfactindispensabletotheChurchasthedoneeofpiousgifts；andtheywerealsoessentialandcharacteristicelementsinthecivilisationamidwhichtheChurchhadbeenrearedtomaturity。ItispossiblethatthecompileroftheCorusBescnamayhavebeenanecclesiastic，ashecertainlywouldhavebeeninanysocietyexcepttheIrish；
but，ifhewerealawyer，hewritesaSalawyerwouldstatethecaseonbehalfofafavouriteandimportantclient。LetmeaddthatalltheBrehonwritersseemtometohaveabiastowardsprivateorseveral，asdistinguishedfromcollective，property。
Nodoubtitwasthen，asalways，thegreatsourceoflegalbusiness，anditmayhaveseemedtothem，anditpossiblywas，theindextosuchadvanceincivilisationastheircountrywascapableofmaking。
Myownstrongopinionisthatthe’Fine，’whoserightsandpowersaretheprincipalthemeoftheCorusBescna，andwhosenamethetranslatorsrender’Tribe，’isneithertheTribeinitslargestextension，nor，ontheotherhand，themodernFamilyorgroupofdescendantsfromalivingancestor，buttheSept。Itisabodyofkinsmenwhoseprogenitorisnolongerliving，butwhosedescentfromhimisareality，andneitheramythnorafiction。
ItistheJointFamilyoftheHindoos，butwiththecharacteristicsofthatgroupconsiderablymodifiedthroughsettlementontheland。Thispeculiarassemblageorcorporationofblood-relatives，whichhasbeenreferredtobymeseveraltimesbefore，isformedbythecontinuanceofthefamilyunionthroughseveral，anditmaybethroughanindefinitenumberofgenerations。Therulethroughoutmostofthecivilisedworldisthat，forallpurposesoflaw，familiesarebrokenupintoindividualsordissolvedintoanumberofnewfamiliesbythedeathoftheirhead。Butthisisnotnecessarythecase。Thegroupmadeupofthosewhomwevaguelycallourrelatives——ofourbrothers，nephews，great-uncles，uncles，andcousins，nolessthanthoserelatedtousintheascendinganddescendinglines——
mightverywell，afteranynumberofdeaths，remainknittedtogethernotonlybybloodandaffection，butbymutualrightsanddutiesprescribedorsanctionedbythelaw。AnassociationofthissortiswellknowntothelawofIndiaastheJointUndividedFamily，or，togivethetechnicaldescription，theFamily，’jointinfood，worship，andestate。’IfaHindoohasbecometherootofafamilyitisnotnecessarilyseparatedbyhisdeath；hischildrencontinueunitedforlegalpurposesasacorporatebrotherhood，andsomedefiniteactofoneormoreofthebrethrenisrequiredtoeffectadissolutionoftheplexusofmutualrightsandapartitionofthefamilyproperty。ThefamilythusformedbythecontinuanceofseveralgenerationsinunionisidenticalinoutlinewithagroupveryfamiliartothestudentsoftheolderRomanlaw——theAgnaticKindred。TheAgnateswerethatassemblageofpersonswhowouldhavebeenunderthepatriarchalauthorityofsomecommonancestor，ifhehadlivedlongenoughtoexerciseit。TheJointFamilyoftheHindoosisthatassemblageofpersonswhowouldhavejoinedinthesacrificesatthefuneralofsomecommonancestor，ifhehaddiedintheirlifetime。Inthelastcasethesacerdotalpointofviewmerelytakestheplaceofthelegalorcivil。
Sofarasweareable，amidthedisadvantagesunderwhichweareplacedbytheobscurityofourauthorities，letusexaminethelegalqualitieswhichtheancientIrishlawattributestothisbrotherhoodofkinsmenasitwasfoundinIreland。Firstofall，the’Tribe’oftheBrehontractsisacorporate，organic，self-sustainingunit。’TheTribesustainsitself。’’AncientLawsofIreland，’ii。283。Itscontinuityhasbeguntodependonthelandwhichitoccupies——’land，’saysoneofthestillunpublishedtracts，’isperpetualman’——butitisnotapurelyland-owningbody；ithas’livechattelsanddeadchattels，’
distinguishedfromthoseofindividualtribesmen。’AncientLawsofIreland，’ii。289。Norisitapurelycultivatingbody；itmayfollowaprofessionalcalling。Ibid。，iii。49-51。Aportionofthetribaldomain，probablythearableandchoicepasturelands，hasbeenallottedtoseparatehouseholdsoftribesmen，buttheyholdtheirallotmentssubjecttothecontrollingrightsoftheentirebrotherhood，andtheprimaryorfundamentalruleisthattheyaretokeeptheirsharesoftribe-landintact。’Everytribesmanisabletokeephistribe-land；heisnottosellitoralienateorconcealit，orgiveittopayforcrimesorcontracts。’’AncientLawsofIreland，’ii。283。’Nopersonshouldleavearentuponhislandoruponhistribewhichhedidnotfinduponit。’Ibid。，iii。52，53。’Everyoneiswealthywhokeepshistribe-landperfectashegotit，whodoesnotleavegreaterdebtuponitthanhefoundonit。’Ibid。，iii。55。
Undercertaincircumstancesthetribesmanmayalienate，bygrant，contract，orbequest，acertainquantityofthetribe-landallottedtohim；butwhatarethecircumstances，andwhatthequantity，arepointsonwhichwecannotventuretomakeanyprecisestatement，soobscureandcontradictoryaretherulessetforth。ButthegranteeprimarilycontemplatediscertainlytheChurch，thoughitseemsclearthatthereisageneralpowerofalienation，eitherwiththeconsentoftheentiretribalbrotherhoodorunderpressureofstrongnecessity。Itfurtherappearstobebeyondquestionthatthetribesmanhasconsiderablygreaterpowerofdispositionoverpropertywhichhehasacquiredthanoverpropertywhichhasdevolvedonhimasamemberofatribe，andthathehasmorepoweroveracquisitionsmadebyhisownunaidedindustrythanoveracquisitionsmadethroughprofitsarisingfromthecultivationoftriballand。’Nopersonshouldgrantlandexceptsuchashehaspurchasedhimself，unlessbythecommonconsentofthetribe。’AncientLawsofIreland，’iii。52，53。’Hewhohasnotsoldorboughti。e。，hewhokeepshistribelandasheobtaineditisallowedtomakegrants，eachaccordingtohisdignityi。e。，asthecommentatorexplains，totheextentofone-thirdorone-halfofhistribe-land。’’Hewhoneithersellsnorpurchasesmaygiveasfarasthethirdofhistribe-shareincaseoflittlenecessityandone-halfincaseofgreatnecessity’’AncientLawsofIreland，’iii。47。’Ifitbelandthatacquiresit，itisone-half；……ifhebeaprofessionalman，itistwo-thirdsofhiscontracts’iii。49。