[p214]CHAPTER VII.THE TRIBAL SYSTEM(continued).I. THE TRIBAL SYSTEM IN IRELAND AND SCOTLAND.The Welsh evidence brings us back to a period parallel with the Saxon era marking the date of King Ine's laws. The Welsh land system was then clearly distinguished from the Saxon by the absence of the manor with its village community in serfdom, and by the presence instead of it of the scattered homesteads (tyddyns) of the tribesmen and taeogs, grouped together for the purpose of the payment to the chief of the food-rents, or their money equivalents.
[p214]
The Welsh evidence brings us back to a period parallel with the Saxon era marking the date of King Ine's laws. The Welsh land system was then clearly distinguished from the Saxon by the absence of the manor with its village community in serfdom, and by the presence instead of it of the scattered homesteads (tyddyns) of the tribesmen and taeogs, grouped together for the purpose of the payment to the chief of the food-rents, or their money equivalents.
Further light may possibly be obtained from observation of the tribal system in a still earlier economic stage, though at a much later date, in Ireland.
Irish land divisions closely resemble the Welsh.
Now, first—without going out of our depth as we might easily do in the Irish evidence—it may readily be shown, sufficiently for the present purpose, that the system of land divisions, or rather of the grouping of homesteads into artificial clusters with arithmetical precision, was prevalent in Ireland outside the Pale as late as the times of Queen Elizabeth and[p215]James I., when an effort was made to substitute English for Irish customs and laws.
There are extant several surveys of parts of Ireland of that date in which are to be recognised arrangements of homesteads almost precisely similar to those of the Welsh Codes. And further, the names of the tenants being given, we can see that they wereblood relationslike the Welsh tribesmen, with a carefully preserved genealogy guarding the fact of their relationship and consequent position in the tribe.
The best way to realise this fact may be to turn to actual examples.
According to an inquisition275made of the county ofFermanaghin 1 James I. (1603), the county was found to be divided into seven equal baronies, the description of one of which may be taken as a sample.
Clusters oftathsortyddyns.
'The temporal land within this barony is all equally divided into712ballybetaghes[literallyvictuallers'towns,276or units for purposes of the food-rents like the Welshtrevs], each containing 4 quarters, each of those quarters containing 4 tathes [corresponding with the Welshtyddyns], and each of those tathes aforesaid to be 30 acres country measure.'Of 'spirituallands' there are two parish churches, one having 4 quarters, the other 1 quarter.Also there are 'other small freedoms containing small parcels of land, some belonging to the spiritualty, and others being part of themensallands allotted to Macgwire (the chief).'
'The temporal land within this barony is all equally divided into712ballybetaghes[literallyvictuallers'towns,276or units for purposes of the food-rents like the Welshtrevs], each containing 4 quarters, each of those quarters containing 4 tathes [corresponding with the Welshtyddyns], and each of those tathes aforesaid to be 30 acres country measure.'
Of 'spirituallands' there are two parish churches, one having 4 quarters, the other 1 quarter.
Also there are 'other small freedoms containing small parcels of land, some belonging to the spiritualty, and others being part of themensallands allotted to Macgwire (the chief).'
This exactly corresponds with the arrangement for the purposes of the gwestva of the Welshtyddynsin groups of 4 and 16, as in the Venedotian Code.[p216]
There is also aSurvey of County Monaghanin 33 Elizabeth277(1591), in which the names of the holders of thetatesin eachbailebiatagh, or group of 16, are given. Thus, again, to take a single example,—
Example in Co. Monaghan.
Balleclonangre, a ballibeatachcontaining xvi.tates.To Breine McCabe Fitz Alexander5 tates.To Edmond McCabe Fitz Alexander1 tate.To Cormocke McCabe2 tates.To Breine Kiagh McCabe2 tates.To Edmond boy, McCabe1 tate.To Rosse McCabe McMelaghen1 tate.To Gilpatric McCowla McCabe1 tate.To Toole McAlexander McCabe1 tate.To James McTirlogh McCabe1 tate.To Arte McMelaghlin Dale McMahon1 tate.——16
A fresh survey of the same district was made by Sir John Davies in 1607;278the record for this same bailebiatagh is asfollows:—
Patrick M'Brian M'Cabe being found by a jury the legitimate son of Brian M'Cabe Fitz-Alexander, in demesne, 5 tates1. Lissenarte.2. Cremoyle.3. Sharaghanadan.4. Nealoste.5. Tirehannely.Patrick M'Edmond M'Cabe Fitz-Alexander, in demesne, 1 tate6. Curleighe.Cormock M'Cabe, in demesne, 2 tates7. Aghenelogh.8. Derraghlin.Rosse M'Arte Moyle, in demesne, 2 tates9. Benage.10. Cowlerasack.James M'Edmond boy M'Cabe, in demesne, 1 tate11. Tollagheisce.Colloe M'Art Oge M'Mahowne, in demesne, 1 tate12. Dromegeryne.Patrick M'Art Oge M'Mahowne, in regard there is good hope of his honest deserts, and that the first patentee disclaimeth, in demesne, 1 tate13. Corevanane.Toole M'Toole M'Alexander M'Cabe, in demesne, 1 tate14. Turrgher.James M'Tirleogh M'Cabe, in demesne, 1 tate15.Brian M'Art Oge M'Mahowne, in demesne, 1 tate16.
The tribesmen blood relations.
Now, by comparison it will be seen that at both dates there were sixteentatesin the bailebiatagh, and that the holders were evidently blood relations. In some cases the name of a son takes the place of his father (the genealogy being kept up), and in others new tenants appear.
Thetatesfamily holdings.
There is also reason to suppose that thesetateswere family homesteads (like thetyddynsof the Welsh 'family land'), with smaller internal divisions, and embracing a considerable number of lesser households. The fact that one person only is named as holding the tate, or the two tates, as the case may be, suggests that he is so named as the common ancestor or head of the chief household representing all the belongings to the tate.Withinthe tate the subdivision of land seems to have been carried to an indefinite extent. The following extract from Sir John Davies' report will probably give the best account of the actual and, to his eye, somewhat confused condition of things within the tates, as he found them. It relates to the county of Fermanagh, and is in the form of a letter to the Earl of Salisbury, dated 1607:279—[p218]
Sir John Davies' description of the septs.
For the several possessions of all these lands we took this course to find them out, and set them down for his lordship's information. We called unto us the inhabitants of every barony severally. . . We had present certain of the clerks or scholars of the country, who know all theseptsandfamilies, and all their branches, andthe dignity280of one sept above another, and what families or personswere chief of every sept, and who werenext, and who were ofa third rank, and so forth, till they descended to the most inferior man in all the baronies; moreover, they took upon them to tell what quantity of land every man ought to have by the custom of their country, which is of the nature of gavelkind. Whereby, as their septs or families did multiply, their possessions have been from time to time divided and subdivided and broken into so many small parcels as almost every acre of land hath a several owner, which termeth himself a lord, and his portion of land his country: notwithstanding, as McGuyre himself had a chiefry over all the country, and some demesnes that did ever pass to him only who carried that title; so was there a chief of every sept who had certain services, duties, or demesnes, that ever passed to the tannist of that sept, and never was subject to division. When this was understood, we first inquired whether one or more septs did possess that barony which we had in hand. That being set down, we took the names of the chief parties of the sept or septs that did possess the baronies, and also the names of such as were second in them, and so of others that were inferior unto them again in rank and in possessions. Then, whereas every barony containeth seven ballibetaghs and a half, we caused the name of every ballibetagh to be written down; and thereupon we made inquiry what portion of land or services every man held in every ballibetagh, beginning with such first as had land and services; and after naming such as had the greatest quantity of land, and so descending unto such as possess only two taths; then we stayed, for lower we could not go,281because we knew the purpose of the State was only to establish such freeholders as are fit to serve on juries; at least, we had found by experience in the county of Monaghan that such as had less than two taths allotted to them had not 40s.freehold per annumultra reprisalem; and therefore were not of competent ability for that service; and yet the number of freeholders named in the county was above 200.
For the several possessions of all these lands we took this course to find them out, and set them down for his lordship's information. We called unto us the inhabitants of every barony severally. . . We had present certain of the clerks or scholars of the country, who know all theseptsandfamilies, and all their branches, andthe dignity280of one sept above another, and what families or personswere chief of every sept, and who werenext, and who were ofa third rank, and so forth, till they descended to the most inferior man in all the baronies; moreover, they took upon them to tell what quantity of land every man ought to have by the custom of their country, which is of the nature of gavelkind. Whereby, as their septs or families did multiply, their possessions have been from time to time divided and subdivided and broken into so many small parcels as almost every acre of land hath a several owner, which termeth himself a lord, and his portion of land his country: notwithstanding, as McGuyre himself had a chiefry over all the country, and some demesnes that did ever pass to him only who carried that title; so was there a chief of every sept who had certain services, duties, or demesnes, that ever passed to the tannist of that sept, and never was subject to division. When this was understood, we first inquired whether one or more septs did possess that barony which we had in hand. That being set down, we took the names of the chief parties of the sept or septs that did possess the baronies, and also the names of such as were second in them, and so of others that were inferior unto them again in rank and in possessions. Then, whereas every barony containeth seven ballibetaghs and a half, we caused the name of every ballibetagh to be written down; and thereupon we made inquiry what portion of land or services every man held in every ballibetagh, beginning with such first as had land and services; and after naming such as had the greatest quantity of land, and so descending unto such as possess only two taths; then we stayed, for lower we could not go,281because we knew the purpose of the State was only to establish such freeholders as are fit to serve on juries; at least, we had found by experience in the county of Monaghan that such as had less than two taths allotted to them had not 40s.freehold per annumultra reprisalem; and therefore were not of competent ability for that service; and yet the number of freeholders named in the county was above 200.
Sir John Davies, in the same report, also gives a graphic description of the difficulty he had in[p219]obtaining from the aged Brehon of the district the roll on which were inscribed the particulars of the various holdings, including those on the demesne or mensal land of the chief.282
It is difficult to form a clear conception of what the tribes, septs, and families were, and what were their relations to one another. But for the present purpose it is sufficient to understand that a sept consisted of a number of actual or reputedblood relations, bearing the same family names, and bound together by other and probably more artificial ties, such as common liability for the payment oferic, or blood fines.
A curious example of what is virtually an actual sept is found in the State Papers of James I.
Example of a Cumberland sept.
In 1606 a sept of the 'Grames,' under their chief 'Walter, the gude man of Netherby,' being troublesome on the Scottish border, were transplanted from Cumberland to Roscommon; and in the schedule to the articles arranging for this transfer, it appears that the sept consisted of 124 persons, nearly all bearing the surname ofGrame. They were divided into families, seventeen of which were set down as possessed of 20l.and upwards, four of 10l.and upwards, six of the poorer sort, six of no abilities, while as dependants there were four servants of the name of Grame, and about a dozen of irregular hangers on to the sept.283
The sept was a human swarm. The chief was the Queen Bee round whom they clustered. The territory occupied by a whole sept was divided[p220]among the inferior septs which had swarmed off it. And a sort of feudal relation prevailed between the parent and the inferior septs.
There can probably, on the whole, be no more correct view of the Irish tribal system in its essence and spirit than the simple generalisation made by Sir John Davies himself, from the various and, in some sense, inconsistent and entangled facts which bewildered him in detail.284
The chiefs and the tanists.
First, as regards the chiefs, whether of tribes or septs, and their demesne lands, hewrites:285—
'1. By the Irish custom of tanistry the chieftains of every country and the chief of every sept had no longer estate than for life in their chieferies, the inheritance whereof did rest in no man. And these chieferies, though they had some portions of land allotted unto them, did consist chiefly in cuttings and coscheries and other Irish exactions, whereby they did spoil and impoverish the people at their pleasure. And when their chieftains were dead their sons or next heirs did not succeed them, but theirtanists, who were elective, and purchased their elections by show of hands.'
'1. By the Irish custom of tanistry the chieftains of every country and the chief of every sept had no longer estate than for life in their chieferies, the inheritance whereof did rest in no man. And these chieferies, though they had some portions of land allotted unto them, did consist chiefly in cuttings and coscheries and other Irish exactions, whereby they did spoil and impoverish the people at their pleasure. And when their chieftains were dead their sons or next heirs did not succeed them, but theirtanists, who were elective, and purchased their elections by show of hands.'
Division of holdings among tribesmen.
Next, as to tribesmen and their inferiortenancies:—
'2. And by the Irish custom of gavelkind the inferior tenancies were partible amongst all the males of the sept; and after partition made, if any one of the sept had died his portion was not divided among his sons, but the chief of the sept made a new partition of all the lands belonging to that sept, and gave every one his part according to his antiquity.'
'2. And by the Irish custom of gavelkind the inferior tenancies were partible amongst all the males of the sept; and after partition made, if any one of the sept had died his portion was not divided among his sons, but the chief of the sept made a new partition of all the lands belonging to that sept, and gave every one his part according to his antiquity.'
The 'shuffling and changing' and frequent redistributions.
These two Irish customs (Sir John Davies continues) made all their possessions uncertain, being shuffled and changed and removed so often from one to another, by new elections and partitions, 'which uncertainty of estates hath been the true cause of desolation and barbarism in this land.'[p221]
These were obviously the main features of an earlier stage of the tribal system than we have seen in Wales. It was the system which fitted easily into the artificial land divisions and clusters of homesteads. And this method of clustering homesteads, in its turn, not only facilitated, but even made possible those frequent redistributions which mark this early stage of the tribal system.
The method of artificial clustering was apparently widely spread through Ireland, as we found it in the various divisions of Wales.
The system ancient
It also was ancient; for according to an early poem, supposed by Dr. Sullivan286to belong 'in substance though not in language to the sixth or seventh century,' Ireland was anciently divided into 184 'Tricha Céds' (30 hundreds [of cows]), each of which contained 30bailes(or townlands); 5,520bailesin all.
Thebaileor townland is thusdescribed:—
'A baile sustains 300 cows,Four full herds therein may roam.
'A baile sustains 300 cows,Four full herds therein may roam.
'A baile sustains 300 cows,
Four full herds therein may roam.
and pastoral.
The poem describes thebailes(or townlands) as divided into 4 quarters,i.e.a quarter for each of the 4 herds of 75 cows each.
Ballys and quarters.
The poem further explains that thebaileor townland was equal to 12 'seisrighs' (by some translated 'plough-lands'), and that the latter land measure is 120 acres,287making the quarter equal to three 'seisrighs'[p222]or 360 acres. But this latter mode of measurement is probably a later innovation introduced with the growth of arable farms. The old system was division into quarters, and founded on the prevalent pastoral habits of the people. In the earliest records Connaught is found to be divided intoballys, and the ballys intoquarters, which were generally distinguished by certain mears and bounds.288The quarters were sometimes called 'cartrons,' but in other cases the cartron was the quarter of a quarter,i.e.a 'tate.' O'Kelly's county in 1589 was found to contain66512quartersof 120 acres each.289
Lastly, it may be mentioned that in the re-allotment of the lands in Roscommon to the sept of theGrameson their removal from Cumberland each family of the better class was to receive aquarterof land containing 120 acres.290
The system in Scotland
The evidence as regards Scotland is scanty, but Mr. Skene, in his interesting chapter on 'the tribe in Scotland,' has collected together sufficient evidence to show that the tribal organisation in the Gaelic districts was closely analogous to that in Ireland.291
and in the Isle of Man.
There are also indications that the Isle of Man was anciently divided into ballys and quarters.292[p223]
The old tribal division of the ballys into 'quarters' and 'tates' has left distinct and numerous traces in the names of the present townlands in Ireland.
Annexed is an example of an ancient bally divided into quarters. It is taken from the Ordnance Survey of county Galway. Two of the quarters, now townlands, still bear the names of 'Cartron' and 'Carrow,' or 'Quarter,' as do more than 600 townlands in various parts of Ireland.293This example will show that the quarters were actual divisions.
Scattered over the bally were the sixteen 'tates' or homesteads, four in each quarter; and in some counties—Monaghan especially—they are still to be traced as the centres of modern townlands, which bear the names borne by the 'tates' three hundred years ago, as registered in Sir John Davies' survey. There is still often to be found in the centre of the modern townland the circular and partly fortified enclosure294where the old 'tate' stood, and the lines of the present divisions of the fields often wind themselves round it in a way which proves that it was once their natural centre.
Moreover, the names of the 'tates' still preserved in the present townlands bear indirect witness to the[p224]reality of the old tribal redistributions and shiftings of the households from one 'tate' to another. They seldom are compounded of personal names. They generally are taken from some local natural feature. The homestead was permanent. The occupants were shifting.
Again, an example taken from the Ordnance Survey—from county Monaghan—will most clearly illustrate these points, and help the reader to appreciate the reality of the tribal arrangements.
In the survey of the barony of 'Monoughan'295made in 1607, the 'half ballibetogh called Correskallie' is described as containing eight 'tates,' the Irish names of which are recorded. They are given below, and an English translation of the names is added296in brackets to illustrate their peculiar and generally non-personal character.
In the half ballibetogh called Correskallie (Round Hill of the Story-tellers)—4 tatesCorneskelfee (? Correskallie).Correvolen (Round Hill of the Mill).Corredull (Round Hill of the Black Fort).Aghelick (Field of the Badger).4 tatesDromore (the Great Ridge).Killagharnane (Wood of the Heap).Fedowe (Black Wood).Clonelolane (Lonan's Meadow).
A reduced map of this ancient 'half-ballibetogh,' as it appears now on the large Ordnance Survey, is appended, in which the names of the old 'tates' appear, with but little change, in the modern townlands. The remains of the circular enclosures[p225]marking the sites of the old 'tates' are still to be traced in one or two cases. The acreage of each townland is given on the map in English measures. It will be remembered that in Monaghan 60 Irish acres were allotted to each tate instead of the usual 30.
Example of an ancient 'Bally' or 'Townland' still divided into 'Quarters' which are now called 'Townlands,' taken from sheet 103 of the Ordnance Survey of Co. Galway.Map of the 'Half-bally' of Correskallie Co. Monaghan.See Larger:BallyHalf-ballyGo to:List of Illustrations
Example of an ancient 'Bally' or 'Townland' still divided into 'Quarters' which are now called 'Townlands,' taken from sheet 103 of the Ordnance Survey of Co. Galway.Map of the 'Half-bally' of Correskallie Co. Monaghan.
See Larger:BallyHalf-ballyGo to:List of Illustrations
This evidence will be sufficient to prove that the arithmetical clustering of the homesteads was real, and that, as in Wales, so in Ireland, under the tribal system the homesteads were scattered over the country, and not grouped together in villages and towns.297
Passing to the methods of agriculture, it is obvious, that, even in a pastoral state, the growth of corn cannot be wholly neglected. We have seen that in Wales there was agriculture, and that, so far as it extended, the ploughing was conducted on an open-field system, and by joint-ploughing.
It was precisely so also in Ireland, and it had been from time immemorial.
Open fields.
It is stated in the 'Book of the Dun Cow' (Lebor na Huidre), compiled in theseventhcentury by the Abbot of Clanmacnois, known to us in an Irish MS. of the year 1100, that 'there was not a ditch, nor fence, nor stone wall round land till came the period of the sons of Aed Slane [in the seventh century], but only smooth fields.' Add to this the passage pointed out by Sir H. S. Maine298in the 'Liber Hymnorum' (a MS. probably of the eleventh century), viz.—[p226]
'Very numerous were the inhabitants of Ireland at this time [the time of the sons of Aed Slane in the seventh century], and their number was so great that they only received in the partition 3lots of9ridges[immaire]of land, namely 9 ridges of bog land, 9 of forest, and 9 of arable land.'
'Very numerous were the inhabitants of Ireland at this time [the time of the sons of Aed Slane in the seventh century], and their number was so great that they only received in the partition 3lots of9ridges[immaire]of land, namely 9 ridges of bog land, 9 of forest, and 9 of arable land.'
Therun-rigorRundalesystem in Ireland and Scotland.
Taking those two passages together, and noting that the word for 'ridges' (immaire) is the same word (imire, oriomair299) now used in Gaelic for a ridge of land, and that the recently remaining system of strips and balks in Ireland and Scotland is still known as the 'run-rig' system, it becomes clear that whatever there was of arable land in any particular year lay in open fields divided into ridges or strips.
There are, further, some passages in theBrehon Lawswhich show that at least among the lower grades of tribesmen there was joint-ploughing. And this arose not simply from 'joint-tenancy' of undivided land by co-heirs,300but from the fact that the tribesmen of lower rank only possessedportionsof the requisites of a plough,301just as was the case with Welsh tribesmen and the Saxon holders of yard-lands.
There can be little doubt, therefore, that we must picture the households of tribesmen occupying the four 'tates' in each 'quarter' as often combining to produce the plough team, and as engaged to some extent in joint-ploughing.[p227]
At first, what little agriculture was needful would be, like the Welsh 'coaration of the waste,' the joint-ploughing of grass land, which after the year's crop, or perhaps three or four years' crop, would go back into grass.302But it would seem from the passage quoted above, that the whole quarter of normally 120 Irish acres was at first divided into 'ridges'—possibly Irish acres—to facilitate the allotment among the households not only of that portion which was arable for the year, but also of the shares in the bog and the forest. No doubt originally there was plenty of mountain pasture besides the thirty, or sometimes sixty scattered acres or ridges allotted in[p228]'run-rig' to each 'tate' or household. In the seventh century, as we have seen, the complaint was made that the pressure of population had reduced the shares to twenty-seven ridges instead of thirty.
Finally, when we examine in the Highlands of Scotland as well as in Ireland the still remaining custom known as the 'Rundale' or 'run-rig' system, whereby a whole townland or smaller area is held in common by the people of the village, and shared among them in rough equality by dividing it up into a large number of small pieces, of which each holder takes one here and another there; we see before us in Scotland as in Ireland a survival of that custom of scattered ownership which belonged to the open-field system all the world over; whilst we mark again the absence of the yard-land, which was so constant a feature of the English system. The method is even applied to potato ground, where the spade takes the place of the plough; and thus instead of the strip, or acre laid out for ploughing, there is the 'patch' which so often marks the untidy Celtic townland.
Existing maps of townlands, whilst showing very clearly the practice still in vogue of subdividing a holding by giving to each sharer a strip in each of the scattered parcels of which the old holding consisted, hardly retain traces of the ancient division of the whole 'quarter' into equal ridges or acres. But they show very clearly the scattered ownership which has been so tenaciously adhered to, along with the old tribal practice of equal division among male heirs. An example of a modern townland is annexed, which will illustrate these interesting points. The confusion it presents will also illustrate the inherent[p229]incompatibility in a settled district of equal division among heirs with anything like the yard-land, or bundle of equal strips handed down unchanged from generation to generation.
Example of divisions and holdings in a Townland on the Run-rig system, Extracted from Report of Devon Commission, see Lord Dufferin's 'Irish Emigration & Tenure.'This townland contains 205 acres now occupied in 422 lots, by 29 tenants 3 of whose scattered holdings are shown in different colors.SeeLarger.Go to:List of Illustrations
Example of divisions and holdings in a Townland on the Run-rig system, Extracted from Report of Devon Commission, see Lord Dufferin's 'Irish Emigration & Tenure.'
This townland contains 205 acres now occupied in 422 lots, by 29 tenants 3 of whose scattered holdings are shown in different colors.
SeeLarger.Go to:List of Illustrations
Mr. Skene, in his interesting chapter on the 'Land Tenure in the Highlands and Islands,'303has brought together many interesting facts, and has drawn a vivid picture of local survivals of farming communities pursuing their agriculture on therun-rigsystem, and holding their pasture land in common. And the traveller on the west coast of Scotland cannot fail to find among the crofters many examples of modified forms of joint occupation in which the methods of therun-rigsystem are more or less applied even to newly leased land at the present time.
Thus whilst the tribal system seems to be the result mainly of the long-continued habits of a pastoral people, it could and did adapt itself to arable agriculture, and it did so on the lines of the open field system in a very simple form, extemporised wherever occasion required, becoming permanent when the tribe became settled on a particular territory.
The Irish tribal system in an earlier stage than the Welsh.
Returning now to the main object of the inquiry we seem, in the perhaps to some extent superficial and too simple view taken by Sir John Davies of the Irish tribal arrangements, to have found what we sought—to have got a glimpse in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries of an earlier stage in the working of the tribal system than we get in Wales nearly 1,000 years earlier. In this stage the land in theory was still in tribal ownership, its redistribution among the tribesmen[p230]was still frequent, and arable agriculture was still subordinate to pasture. Lastly, the arithmetical clustering of the homesteads was the natural method by which the frequent redistributions of the land were made easy; while the run-rig form of the open-field system was the natural mode of conducting a co-operative and shifting agriculture.
But whilst gaining this step, and resting upon it for our present purpose, we must not be blind to the fact that in another way the Irish system had become more developed and more complex than the Welsh.
Sir John Davies sometimes dwells upon the fact that the chief was in no true sense the lord of the county, and the tribesmen in no true sense the freeholders of the land. The land belonged to the tribe. But, as we have seen, he found also that, as in Wales, the chiefs and sub-chiefs had, as a matter of fact, rightly or wrongly, gradually acquired a permanent occupation of a certain portion of land—so many townlands—which, using the English manorial phrase, he speaks of as 'in demesne.' Upon these the chief's immediate followers, and probably bondservants, lived, like the Welsh taeogs, paying him food-rents or tribute very much resembling those of the taeogs.
The complications described in theBrehon Laws.
This land, as we have seen, he calls 'mensal land,' probably translating an Irish term; and we are reminded at once of the Welshtaeog-landin theRegister trevs, which also, from the gifts of food, was called in one of the Welsh laws 'mensal land.'
Further, besides these innovations upon the ancient simplicity of the tribal system, there had evidently, and perhaps from early times, grown up artificial relationships, founded upon contract, or even[p231]fiction, which, so to speak, ran across and complicated very greatly the tribal arrangements resting upon blood relationship. This probably is what makes theBrehon lawsso bewildering and apparently inconsistent with the simplicity of the tribal system as in its main features it presented itself to Sir John Davies.
The loan of cattle by those tribesmen (Boaires) who had more than enough to stock their proper share of the tribe land to other tribesmen who had not cattle enough to stock theirs, in itself introduced a sort of semi-feudal, or perhaps semi-commercialdependence of one tribesman upon another. Tribal equality, or rather gradation of rank according to blood relationship, thus became no doubt overlaid or crossed by an actual inequality, which earlier or later developed in some sense into an irregular form of lordship and service. Hence the complicated rules of 'Saer' and 'Daer' tenancy. There were perhaps also artificial modes of introducing new tribesmen into a sept without the blood relationship on which the tribal system was originally built. These complications may be studied in the Brehon laws, as they have been studied by Sir Henry Maine and Mr. Skene, and the learned editors of the 'Laws' themselves; but, however ancient may be the state of things which they describe, they need not detain us here, or prevent our recognising in the actual conditions described by Sir John Davies the main features of an earlier stage of the system than is described in the ancient Welsh laws.
The comparison of the Gaelic and Cymric tribal systems has shown resemblances so close in leading[p232]principles, that we may safely seek to obtain from some of the differences between them a glimpse into earlier stages of the tribal system than the Welsh evidence, taken alone, would have opened to our view.
Outside influences: Rome, Christianity, and the ecclesiastical system.
Two powerful influences had evidently already partially arrested the tribal system in Wales, and turned it as it were against its natural bent into fixed and hardened grooves, before it assumed the shape in which it appears in the Welsh laws. These two powerful influences were (1) Roman rule and (2) Christianity. Their first action was to some extent exercised singly and apart, though concurrently in point of time. But their separate influences were afterwards surpassed and consolidated by the remarkable combination of them both which was presented in the ecclesiastical system.
The influences of Christianity, and of the later ecclesiastical system, were powerfully exerted in Ireland also; but the Irish tribal system differed from the Welsh in its never having passed directly under Roman imperial rule.
The Brehon laws of Ireland perhaps owe their form and origin to the necessity of moulding the old traditional customs to the new Christian standard of the ecclesiastics, under whose eye the codification was made. So, also, the Welsh laws of Howell the Good, and the Saxon laws of Ine and his successors, all reflect and bear witness to this influence, and had been no doubt moulded by it into softer forms than had once prevailed. At least the harshest thorns which grew, we may guess, even rankly upon the tribal system, must, we may be sure, have been already removed before our first view of it.[p233]
In fact, nearly all the early codes, whether those of Ireland, Wales, or England, or those of German tribes on the Continent, bear marks of a Christian influence, either directly impressed upon them by ecclesiastical authorship and authority, or indirectly through contact with the Roman law, which itself in the later edicts contained in the Codes of Theodosius and Justinian had undergone evident modification in a Christian sense.
So far as the Welsh tribal system is concerned, it is quite clear that whatever had been the influence upon it of direct Roman imperial rule and early Christianity, it submitted to a second and fresh influence in the tenth century.
This appears when we consider the avowed motives and object of Howell the Good in making his code. Its preface recites that he 'found the Cymry perverting the laws and customs, and therefore summoned from everycymwdof his kingdom six men practised in authority and jurisprudence; and also the archbishop, bishops, abbots, and priors, imploring grace and discernment for the king to amend the laws and customs of Cymru.' It goes on to say that, 'by the advice of these wise men, the king retained some of the old laws, others he amended, others he abolished entirely, establishing new laws in their place;' special pains being taken to guard against doing anything 'in opposition tothe law of the Churchorthe law of the Emperor.'304
Finally, it is stated in the same preface that Howell the Good went to Rome to confirm his laws by papal[p234]authority,A.D.914, and diedA.D.940. It may be added that the reference to the 'law of the Emperor' was no fiction, for 'Blegewryd, Archdeacon of Llandav, was the clerk, and he was a doctor in the law of the Emperor and in the law of the Church.'
The tribal division among male heirs survives these influences.
In connexion with this ecclesiastical influence there is a curious exception which proves the rule, in the refusal of Howell the Good to give up the tribal rule of equal division among sons, which lay at the root of the tribal system, and to introduce in its place the law of primogeniture.
'The ecclesiastical law says that no son is to have the patrimony but the eldest born to the father by the married wife: the law of Howell, however, adjudges it to the youngest son as well as to the oldest, [i.e. all the sons] and decides that sin of the father or his illegal act is not to be brought against a son as to his patrimony.'305
'The ecclesiastical law says that no son is to have the patrimony but the eldest born to the father by the married wife: the law of Howell, however, adjudges it to the youngest son as well as to the oldest, [i.e. all the sons] and decides that sin of the father or his illegal act is not to be brought against a son as to his patrimony.'305
And so tenaciously was this tribal rule adhered to that even Edward I., after his conquest of Wales, was obliged for the sake of peace to concede its continuance to the Welsh, insisting only that none but lawful sons should share in the inheritance.306
The fixing of the gwestva dues, and their commutation into thetunc poundfrom every free trev, may well have been one of the emendations needful to bring the Welsh laws into correspondence with the 'law of the Emperor,' if it was not indeed the result of direct Roman rule, under which the chiefs paid a fixedtributumto the Roman State, possibly founded on the tribal food-rent.307[p235]
Early exactions and license on the part of the chiefs.
The special Welsh laws which relieve the free trevs of 'family land' from being under themaer(or villicus) andcanchellor, and fromkylch(or progress), and fromdovraeth(or having the king's officers quartered upon them), and even limit the right of themaerandcanchellorto quarter on the taeogs to three times a year with three followers, and their share in the royal dues from the taeogs to one-third of thedawnbwyds,308look very much like restrictions of old and oppressive customs resembling those prevalent in Ireland in later times, made with the intention of bringing the tribesmen and even the taeogs within the protection of rules similar to those in the Theodosian Code protecting the coloni on Roman estates.
The probability, therefore, is that the picture drawn by Sir John Davies of the lawless exactions of the Irish chieftain from the tribesmen of his sept would apply also to early Welsh and British chieftains before the influence of Christianity and later Roman law, through the Church, had restrained their harshness, and limited their originally wild and lawless exactions from the tribesmen. The legends of theLiber Landavensiscontain stories of as wild and unbridled license and cruelty on the part of Welsh chieftains as are recorded in the ancient stories of the Irish tribes. And Cæsar records that the chiefs of Gallic tribes had so oppressively exacted their dues (probably food-rents), that they had reduced the smaller people almost into the condition of slaves.[p236]
The close resemblance of the Welsh system of clustering the homesteads and trevs in groups of four and twelve or sixteen, to that prevalent in Ireland, points to the common origin of both. It confirms the inference that both in Wales and in Ireland this curious practice found itsraison d'êtrein a stage of tribal life when the families of free tribesmen did not as yet always occupy the same tyddyn, but were shifted from one to another whenever the dying out of a family rendered needful a redistribution to ensure the fair and equal division of the tribal lands among the tribesmen, 'according to their antiquity' and their rank under the tribal rules.
Redivisions and shifting of holdings.
This occasional shifting of tribal occupation within the tribe-land was still going on in Ireland under the eyes of Sir John Davies, and it seems to have survived the Roman rule in Wales, though it was there probably confined within very narrow limits.
It seems, however, to have been itself a survival of the originally more or less nomad habits of pastoral tribes.