lect06-第4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！


circumstance　that　the　Irish　Chief；　though　far　more　privileged






than　his　tenants；　was　little　better　housed　and　almost　as　poorly






furnished　out；　and　could　not　have　managed　to　consume　at　home　the






provisions　to　which　his　gifts　of　stock　entitled　him。　But　the






practice　had　a　most　unhappy　history。　The　Brehon　law　defines　it






and　limits　it　narrowly　on　all　sides；　but　its　inconvenience　and






its　tendency　to　degenerate　into　an　abuse　are　manifest；　and　from






it　are　doubtless　descended　those　oppressions　which　revolted　such






English　observers　of　Ireland　as　Spenser　and　Davis；　the　'coin　and






livery；'　and　the　'cosherings'　of　the　Irish　Chiefs；　which　they






denounce　with　such　indignant　emphasis。　Perhaps　there　was　no　Irish






usage　which　seemed　to　Englishmen　so　amply　to　justify　that　which






as　a　whole　I　believe　to　have　been　a　great　mistake　and　a　great






wrong；　the　entire　judicial　or　legislative　abolition　of　Irish






customs。　The　precautions　by　which　the　Brehon　lawyers　could　fence






it　in　were　not　probably　at　any　time　very　effectual；　but；　as　I






before　stated；　they　did　what　they　could；　and；　moreover；　as






defined　by　them；　the　relation　out　of　which　Daer…stock　tenancy　and






its　peculiar　obligations　arose　was　not　perpetual。　After　food…rent






and　service　had　been　rendered　for　seven　years；　if　the　Chief　died；






the　tenant　became　entitled　to　the　stock；　while；　on　the　other






hand；　if　the　tenant　died；　his　heirs　were　partly；　though　not






wholly；　relieved　from　their　obligation。　At　the　same　time　it　is






very　probable　that　Daer…stock　tenancy；　which　must　have　begun　in






the　necessities　of　the　tenant；　was　often　from　the　same　cause






rendered　practically　permanent。






　　　　It　has　frequently　been　conjectured　that　certain　incidents　of






feudal　tenure　pointed　back　to　some　such　system　as　the　Brehon






tracts　describe　to　us。　The　Heriot　of　English　Copyhold　tenure；　the






'best　beast'　taken　by　the　Lord　on　the　death　of　a　base　tenant；　has






been　explained　as　an　acknowledgment　of　the　Lord's　ownership　of






the　cattle　with　which　he　anciently　stocked　the　land　of　his






villeins；　just　as　the　Heriot　of　the　military　tenant　is　believed






to　have　had　its　origin　in　a　deposit　of　arms。　Adam　Smith






recognised　the　great　antiquity　of　the　Metayer　tenancy；　still






widely　spread　over　the　Continent；　of　which　one　variety　was　in　his






day　found　in　Scotland　under　the　name　of　'steelbow。'　I　am　not　at






all　surprised　that；　in　one　of　the　Prefaces　to　the　official






translation　of　the　Brehon　laws；　a　comparison　should　be　instituted






between　this　tenancy　and　the　Saer　and　Daer…stock　tenancy　of






ancient　Irish　law。　The　outward　resemblance　is　considerable；　and






the　history　of　Metayer　tenancy　is　so　obscure　that　I　certainly






cannot　undertake　to　say　that　practices　answering　to　those　I　have






described　had　not　in　some　countries　something　to　do　with　its






primitive　form。　But　the　distinctions　between　the　ancient　and　the






modern　tenancies　are　more　important　than　the　analogies。　In






Metayer　tenancy　a　landlord　supplies　the　land　and　stock；　a　tenant






the　labour　only　and　the　skill；　but　in　Saer　and　Daer…stock　tenancy






the　land　belonged　to　the　tenant。　Again；　the　effect　of　the　ancient






Irish　relation　was　to　produce；　not　merely　a　contractual






liability；　but　a　status。　The　tenant　had　his　social　and　tribal






position　distinctly　altered　by　accepting　stock。　Further；　the






acceptance　of　stock　was　not　always　voluntary。　A　tribesman；　in　one






stage　of　Irish　custom　at　all　events；　was　bound　to　receive　stock






from　his　own　'King；'　or；　in　other　words；　from　the　Chief　of　his






tribe　in　its　largest　extension；　and　everywhere　the　Brehon　laws






seem　to　me　to　speak　of　the　acceptance　of　stock　as　a　hard






necessity。　Lastly；　the　Tribe　to　which　the　intending　tenant






belonged　had　in　some　cases　a　Veto　on　his　adoption　of　the　new






position；　which　was　clearly　regarded　as　a　proceeding　invasive　of






tribal　rights　and　calculated　to　enfeeble　them。　In　order　to　give






the　Tribe　the　opportunity　of　interposing　whenever　it　had　legal






power　to　do　so；　the　acceptance　of　stock　had　to　be　open　and






public；　and　the　consequences　of　effecting　it　surreptitiously　are






elaborately　set　forth　by　the　law。　It　seems　to　me　clear　that　it






was　discouraged　by　the　current　popular　morality。　One　of　those






rules；　frequent　in　ancient　bodies　of　law；　which　are　rather　moral






precepts　than　juridical　provisions；　declares　that　'no　man　should






leave　a　rent　on　his　land　which　he　did　not　find　there。'






　　　　The　system　which　I　have　been　describing　must　have　contributed






powerfully　to　dissolve　the　more　ancient　tribal　and　family






organisation。　If　the　Chief　who　gave　and　the　Ceile　who　accepted






stock　belonged　to　the　same　Tribe；　the　effect　of　the　transaction






was　to　create　a　relation　between　them；　not　indeed　altogether






unlike　that　of　tribal　connection；　but　still　materially　different






from　it　in　many　respects　and　much　more　to　the　advantage　of　the






chieftain。　But　the　superior　from　whom　a　man　took　stock　was　not






always　the　Chief　of　his　own　Sept　or　Tribe。　So　far　as　the　Brehon






law　can　be　said　to　show　any　favour　to　the　new　system　of






vassalage；　it　encourages　it　between　natural　chief　and　natural






tribesman；　and；　on　the　other　hand；　it　puts　difficulties　in　its






way　when　there　is　an　attempt　to　establish　it　between　a　tribesman






and　a　strange　Chief。　But　there　seem　to　be　abundant　admissions






that　freemen　did　occasionally　commend　themselves　in　this　way　to






superiors　other　than　their　Chiefs。　avery　nobleman；　as　I　said






before；　is　assumed　to　be　as　a　rule　rich　in　cattle；　and　it　appears






to　have　been　an　object　with　everyone　to　disperse　his　herds　by　the






practice　of　giving　stock。　The　enriched　peasant　who　was　on　his　way






to　be　ennobled；　the　Bo…Aire；　seems　to　have　had　Ceiles　who






accepted　stock　from　him；　as　well　as　had　the　nobles　higher　in






degree。　Accordingly；　the　new　groups　formed　of　the　Lord　and　his






Vassals　　if　we　may　somewhat　antedate　these　last　words　　were






sometimes　wholly　distinct　from　the　old　groups　composed　of　the






Chief　and　his　Clan。　Nor；　again；　was　the　new　relation　confined　to






Aires；　or　noblemen；　and　Ceiles；　or　free　but　non…noble　tribesmen。






The　Bo…Aire　certainly；　and　apparently　the　higher　Chiefs　also；






accepted　stock　on　occasion　from　chieftains　more　exalted　than






themselves；　and　in　the　end　to　'give　stock'　came　to　mean　the　same






thing　as　to　assert　feudal　superiority；　and　to　'accept　stock'　the






same　thing；　which　in　the　language　of　other　societies　was　called






'commendation。'　It　is　strong　evidence　of　the　soundness　of　the






conclusions　reached　of　late　years　by　historical　scholars　（and；






among　others；　by　Mr　Bryce）；　as　to　the　deep　and　wide　influence






exercised　by　the　Roman　Empire；　even　in　its　later　form；　that　（of






course　by　a　fiction）　the　Brehon　law　represents　the　King　of






Ireland　as　'accepting　stock'　from　the　Emperor。　'When　the　King　of






Erin　is　without　opposition'　　that　is；　as　the　explanation　runs；






when　he　holds　the　ports　of　Dublin；　Waterford；　and　Limerick；　which






were　usually　in　the　hands　of　the　Danes　　'he　receives　stock　from






the　King　of　the　Romans'　（S。　M。；　ii。　225）。　The　commentary　go