lect04-第3章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！








distinguished　from　those　of　individual　tribesmen。　（'Ancient　Laws






of　Ireland；'　ii。　289。）　Nor　is　it　a　purely　cultivating　body；　it






may　follow　a　professional　calling。　（Ibid。；　iii。　49…51。）　A　portion






of　the　tribal　domain；　probably　the　arable　and　choice　pasture






lands；　has　been　allotted　to　separate　households　of　tribesmen；　but






they　hold　their　allotments　subject　to　the　controlling　rights　of






the　entire　brotherhood；　and　the　primary　or　fundamental　rule　is






that　they　are　to　keep　their　shares　of　tribe…land　intact。　'Every






tribesman　is　able　to　keep　his　tribe…land；　he　is　not　to　sell　it　or






alienate　or　conceal　it；　or　give　it　to　pay　for　crimes　or






contracts。'　（'Ancient　Laws　of　Ireland；'　ii。　283。）　'No　person






should　leave　a　rent　upon　his　land　or　upon　his　tribe　which　he　did






not　find　upon　it。'　（Ibid。；　iii。　52；　53。）　'Everyone　is　wealthy　who






keeps　his　tribe…land　perfect　as　he　got　it；　who　does　not　leave






greater　debt　upon　it　than　he　found　on　it。'　（Ibid。；　iii。　55。）






　　　　Under　certain　circumstances　the　tribesman　may　alienate；　by






grant；　contract；　or　bequest；　a　certain　quantity　of　the　tribe…land






allotted　to　him；　but　what　are　the　circumstances；　and　what　the






quantity；　are　points　on　which　we　cannot　venture　to　make　any






precise　statement；　so　obscure　and　contradictory　are　the　rules　set






forth。　But　the　grantee　primarily　contemplated　is　certainly　the






Church；　though　it　seems　clear　that　there　is　a　general　power　of






alienation；　either　with　the　consent　of　the　entire　tribal






brotherhood　or　under　pressure　of　strong　necessity。　It　further






appears　to　be　beyond　question　that　the　tribesman　has　considerably






greater　power　of　disposition　over　property　which　he　has　acquired






than　over　property　which　has　devolved　on　him　as　a　member　of　a






tribe；　and　that　he　has　more　power　over　acquisitions　made　by　his






own　unaided　industry　than　over　acquisitions　made　through　profits






arising　from　the　cultivation　of　tribal　land。　'No　person　should






grant　land　except　such　as　he　has　purchased　himself；　unless　by　the






common　consent　of　the　tribe。　（'Ancient　Laws　of　Ireland；'　iii。　52；






53。）　'He　who　has　not　sold　or　bought　（i。e。；　he　who　keeps　his






tribeland　as　he　obtained　it）　is　allowed　to　make　grants；　each






according　to　his　dignity　（i。e。；　as　the　commentator　explains；　to






the　extent　of　one…third　or　one…half　of　his　tribe…land）。'　'He　who






neither　sells　nor　purchases　may　give　as　far　as　the　third　of　his






tribe…share　in　case　of　little　necessity　and　one…half　in　case　of






great　necessity'　（'Ancient　Laws　of　Ireland；'iii。　47。）　'If　it　be






land　that　acquires　it；　it　is　one…half；。。。　if　he　be　a　professional






man；　it　is　two…thirds　of　his　contracts　'　（iii。　49）。






　　　　The　distinction　between　acquired　property　and　property






inherited　or　received　from　kinsmen；　and　the　enlarged　power　of






parting　with　the　first；　are　found　in　many　bodies　of　ancient　law






　in　our　own　early　law　among　others。　The　rule　that　alienations；






otherwise　unlawful；　may　be　made　under　pressure　of　necessity；　is






found　in　many　parts　of　Hindoo　law。　The　rule　requiring　the　consent






of　the　collective　brotherhood　to　alienations；　with　many　minor






rules　of　this　part　of　Brehon　law；　constantly　forms　part　of　the






customs　of　Indian　and　Russian　village…communities；　and　the　duty






of　following　common　practices　of　tillage；　which　is　the　bequest






from　these　communities　which　lasted　longest　in　the　Germanic






countries；　is　classed　by　the　Corus　Bescna；　along　with　Marriage；






as　one　of　the　fundamental　institutions　of　the　irish　people。






（'Ancient　Laws　of　Ireland；'　iii。　17。）　But　much　the　most　striking






and　unexpected　analogies　in　the　Brehon　law　on　the　subject　of






Tribesmen　and　the　Tribe　are　those　which　it　has　with　the　Hindoo






law　of　Joint　Undivided　Families。　Under　the　Brahminical　Indian






law；　whenever　a　member　of　a　joint　family　has　acquired　property






through　special　scientific　knowledge　or　the　practice　of　a　liberal






art；　he　does　not　bring　it　into　the　common　fund；　unless　his






accomplishments　were　obtained　through　a　training　given　to　him　by






his　family　or　at　their　expense。　The　whole　law　on　the　subject　was






much　considered　in　a　strange　case　which　arose　before　the　High






Court　of　Madras　（'Madras　High　Court　Reports；'　ii。　56）；　where　a






joint　family　claimed　the　gains　of　a　dancing…girl。　The　decision　of






the　Court　is　thus　summarised　by　the　Reporter：　'The　ordinary　gains






of　science　are　divisible　（i。e。；　they　are　brought　into　hotchpot






upon　partition　of　an　undivided　estate）；　when　such　science　has






been　imparted　at　the　family　expense　and　acquired　while　receiving






a　family　maintenance。　It　is　otherwise　when　the　science　has　been






imparted　at　the　expense　of　persons　not　members　of　the　learner's






family。'　The　very　counterparts　of　the　Indian　rule　and　of　the






Indian　exception　are　found　in　the　ancient　Irish　law。　'If　（the






tribesman）　be　a　professional　man…that　is；　if　the　property　be






acquired　by　judicature　or　poetry；　or　any　profession　whatsoever　






he　is　capable　of　giving　two…thirds　of　it　to　the　Church。。。　but；　if






it　was　the　lawful　profession　of　his　tribe；　he　shall　not　give　of






the　emolument　of　his　profession　but　just　as　he　could　give　of　the






land　of　his　tribe。'　（Corus　Bescna；　'Ancient　Laws　of　Ireland；'






iii。　5。）　It　will　be　seen　from　the　instances　which　I　have　given






that　the　rules　of　the　Irish　Brehon　law　regulating　the　power　of






individual　tribesmen　to　alienate　their　separate　property　answer






to　the　rules　of　Indian　Brahminical　law　which　regulate　the　power






of　individual　members　of　a　joint　family　to　enjoy　separate






property。　The　difference　is　material。　The　Hindoo　law　assumes　that






collective　enjoyment　by　the　whole　brotherhood　is　the　rule；　and　it






treats　the　enjoyment　of　separate　property　by　individual　brethren






as　an　exception　　an　exception；　I　may　add；　round　which　an






enormous　mass　of　law　has　now　clustered。　On　the　other　hand；　the






Brehon　law；　so　far　as　it　can　be　understood；　seems　to　me






reconcileable　with　no　other　assumption　than　that　individual






proprietary　rights　have　grown　up　and　attained　some　stability






within　the　circle　of　the　tribe。　The　exercise　of　these　rights　is






at　the　same　time　limited　by　the　controlling　powers　of　the






collective　brotherhood　of　tribesmen；　and　to　these　last；　as　to　the






Agnatic　Kindred　at　Rome；　some　ultimate　right　of　succession






appears　to　be　reserved。　Hence　the　Irish　legal　unit　is　not






precisely　a　Joint　Family；　if　the　Brehon　law　is　to　be　trusted；　it






has　considerably　less　of　the　'natural　communism'　which






characterises　the　Indian　institution。　The　'Fine'　of　the　tracts　is






constantly　spoken　of　in　connection　with　landed　property；　and；






whenever　it　is　so　connected；　I　imagine　it　to　have　undergone　some






of　the　changes　which　are　constantly　brought　about　by　contact　with






the　land；　and　I　figure　it　to　myself　in　that　case　as　a　Mark　or






Village…Community；　in　which　the　ideas　proper　to　the　older　group






out　of　which　it　grew；　the　Joint　Family；　have　survived　in






exceptional　strength　It　in　this　respect　approaches　the　Russian






rather　than　the　Indian　type　of　village…community。






　　　　The　'Judgments　of　Co…T