lect04-第1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！







Lecture　IV













The　Tribe　and　the　Land













　　　　It　has　been　very　commonly　believed　that；　before　the　agrarian






measures　of　James　the　First；　Ireland　was　one　of　the　countries　in






which　private　property　in　land　was　invested　with　least






sacredness；　and　in　which　forms　of　ownership　generally　considered






as　barbarous　most　extensively　prevailed。　Spenser　and　Davis






certainly　suggest　this　opinion；　and　several　modern　writers　have






adopted　it。　The　Brehon　law…tracts　prove；　however；　that　it　can






only　be　received　with　considerable　qualification　and






modification；　and　they　show　that　private　property；　and　especially






private　property　in　land；　had　long　been　known　in　Ireland　at　the






epoch　to　which　they　belong；　having　come　into　existence　either






through　the　natural　disintegration　of　collective　ownership　or






through　the　severance　of　particular　estates　from　the　general






tribal　domain。　Nevertheless　it　cannot；　I　think；　be　doubted　that






at　the　period　to　which　the　tracts　are　an　index　much　land　was　held






throughout　Ireland　under　rules　or　customs　savouring　of　the






ancient　collective　enjoyment；　and　this　I　understand　Dr　Sullivan






to　allow。　（Introduction；　p。　cxliv）






　　　　Part　of　the　evidence　of　the　fact　just　stated　is　tolerably






familiar　to　students　of　Irish　history。　At　the　beginning　of　the






seventeenth　century　the　Anglo…Irish　Judges　declared　the　English






Common　Law　to　be　in　force　throughout　Ireland；　and　from　the　date






of　this　decision　all　land　in　the　country　descended　to　the　eldest






son　of　the　last　owner；　unless　its　devolution　was　otherwise






determined　by　settlement　or　will。　In　Sir　John　Davis's　report　of






the　case　and　of　the　arguments　before　the　Court；　it　is　recited






that　hitherto　all　land　in　Ireland　had　descended　either　under　the






rule　of　Tanistry　or　under　the　rules　of　Gavelkind。　The　system　of






inheritance　here　called　Gavelkind　is　thus　described：　When　a






landowning　member　of　an　Irish　Sept　died；　its　chief　made　a






re…distribution　of　all　the　lands　of　the　Sept。　He　did　not　divide






the　estate　of　the　dead　man　among　his　children；　but　used　it　to






increase　the　allotments　of　the　various　households　of　which　the






Sept　was　made　up。　The　Judges　treated　both　Tanistry　and　Gavelkind






as　systems　of　succession　after　death；　of　a　peculiarly　barbarous






and　mischievous　kind；　and；　as　systems　of　succession；　I　shall






consider　them　hereafter。　But　all　systems　of　succession　after






death　bear　a　close　relation　to　ancient　modes　of　enjoyment　during






life；　for　instance；　in　the　Joint　Undivided　Family　of　the　Hindoos；






the　stirpes；　or　stocks；　which　are　only　known　to　European　law　as






branches　of　inheritors；　are　actual　divisions　of　the　family；　and






live　together　in　distinct　parts　of　the　common　dwelling。






（'Calcutta　Review'　July　1874；　p。　208）　The　so…called　Irish






Gavelkind　belongs　to　a　class　of　institutions　very　common　in　the






infancy　of　law；　it　is　a　contrivance　for　securing　comparative






equality　among　the　joint　proprietors　of　a　common　fund。　The






redistribution　here　takes　place　at　the　death　of　a　head　of　a






household；　but　if　equality　were　secured　by　what　is　practically






the　same　process　　viz。；　re…division　after　a　fixed　period　of






years　　an　institution　would　be　produced　which　has　not　quite






died　out　of　Europe　at　the　present　moment；　and　of　which　there　are






traditions　in　all　old　countries。　At　the　same　time　i　have　no　doubt






that；　when　the　Irish　Gavelkind　was　declared　illegal；　it　was　very






far　from　being　the　only　system　of　succession　known　to　Ireland






except　Tanistry；　and　i　th　ink　it　probable　that　many　different






modes　of　enjoyment　and　inheritance　were　abolished　by　the　decision






giving　the　land　to　the　eldest　son。






　　　　It　was　the　actual　observation　of　peculiar　agricultural






usages；　special　methods　of　cultivation；　and　abnormal　rules　of






tenure；　which　mainly　enabled　G。　L。　Von　Maurer　to　restore　the






German　Mark　to　knowledge；　and　it　was　by　using　Von　Maurer's






results　as　his　key　that　Nasse　was　able　to　decipher　the　scattered






references　to　the　'Agricultural　Community　of　the　Middle　Ages'　in






a　variety　of　English　documents。　I　venture　to　think　that　this






class　of　observation　has　not　been　carried　far　enough　in　Ireland






to　yield　material　for　a　confident　opinion；　but　there　certainly






seem　to　be　vestiges　of　ancient　collective　enjoyment　in　the






extensive　prevalence　of　'rundale'　holdings　in　parts　of　the






country。　Under　this　system　a　definite　area　of　land　is　occupied　by






a　group　of　families。　In　the　form　now　most　common；　the　arable






lands　are　held　in　severalty；　while　pasture　and　bog　are　in　common。






But　as　lately　as　fifty　years　since；　cases　were　frequent　in　which






the　arable　land　was　divided　into　farms　which　shifted　among　the






tenant…families　periodically；　and　sometimes　annually。　Even　when






no　such　division　was　made；　a　well…known　relic　of　the　Mark…system；






as　it　showed　itself　in　Germany　and　England；　was　occasionally






found　：　the　arable　portion　of　the　estates　was　composed　of　three






different　qualities　of　soil；　and　each　tenant　had　a　lot　or　lots　in






the　land　of　each　quality；　without　reference　to　position。　What　was






virtually　the　same　system　of　tenure　prevailed　quite　recently　in






the　Scottish　Highlands。　I　have　ascertained　that　the　families






which　formed　the　village…communities　only　just　extinct　in　the






Western　Highlands　had　the　lands　of　the　village　re…distributed






among　them　by　lot　at　fixed　intervals　of　time；　and　I　gather　from






Mr　Skene's　valuable　note　on　'Tribe　Communities　in　Scotland'






（appended　to　the　second　volume　of　his　edition　of　Fordun's






Chronicle）；　that　he　believes　this　system　of　re…division　to　have






been　once　universal；　or　at　least　widely　extended；　among　the






Scottish　Celts。






　　　　It　is　to　be　observed　that　（so　far　as　I　am　able　to　learn）　the






Irish　holdings　in　'rundale'　are　not　forms　of　property；　but　modes






of　occupation。　There　is　always　some　person　above　who　is　legally






owner　of　all　the　land　held　by　the　group　of　families；　and　who；






theoretically；　could　change　the　method　of　holding；　although；






practically；　popular　feeling　would　put　the　greatest　difficulties






in　his　way。　We　must　bear　in　mind；　however；　that　archaic　kinds　of






tenancy　are　constantly　evidence　of　ancient　forms　of






proprietorship。　This　is　so　in　countries　in　which　superior






ownership　has　arisen　through　the　natural　course　of　events　through






purchase　from　small　allodial　proprietors；　through　colonisation　of






village　waste…lands　become　in　time　the　lord's　waste；　or　（in　an






earlier　state　of　society）　through　the　sinking　of　whole






communities　of　peasants　into　villeinage；　and　through　a　consequent






transformation　of　the　legal　theory　of　their　rights。　But　all　this






process　of　change　would　be　gravely　misconstrued　if　it　were






supposed　that；　because　a　Chief　or　Lord　had　come　to　be　recognised






as　legal　owner　of　the　whole　tribal　domain；　or　of　great　portions






of　it；　he　therefore　altered　the　accustomed　methods　of　occupation






and　cultivation；　or　（as　some　would　even　seem　to　think）　he　began






at　once　to　regard　the　occupying　peasantry　as　modern　lessees　or






modern　tenants　at　will。　No　doubt　the　ancient　type　of　ownership






long　served　as　the　model　for　tenancy；　and　the　common　holdings；






dying　out　as　property；　survived　as　occupation。　And；　if　this　were






the　case　in　other　countries；　much　more　would　it　be　so　in　Ireland；






where　property　has　changed　hands　so　often　and　so　violently；　where






during　whole　centuries；　the　owners　of　land　neither　regarded；　nor






were　in　a　position　to　regard；　the　occupiers　save　as　payers　of






rent　and　dues；　and　where　the　conception　of　a　landlord　acting　on






his　legal　ownership　with　a　view　to　improvement　and　increase　of






production　is　altogether　modern。






　　　　The　chief　Brehon　law…tract；　which　sets　forth　the　mutual






rights　of　the　collective　tribe　and　of　individual　tribesmen　or






households　of　tribesmen　in　respect　of　tribal　property；　is　called






the　Corus　Bescna；　and　is　printed　in　the　Third　Volume　of　the






official　edition。　It　presents　great　difficulties。　I　quite　agree






with　the　Editors　that　the　commentary　and　glosses　constantly






contradict　and　obscure　the　text；　either　because　the　commentators






did　not　understand　it　or　because　they　belonged　to　a　later　period






and　a　different　stage　of　legal　relations。　But　the　most　serious






doubt　which　occurs　to　the　student　of　the　text　arises　from　the






strong　and　palpable　bias　of　the　compiler　towards　the　interests　of






the　Church；　indeed；　part　of　the　tract　is　avowedly　devoted　to　the






law　of　Church　property　and　of　the　organisation　of　religious






houses。　When　this　writer　affirms　that；　under　certain






circumstances；　a　tribesman　may　grant　or　contract　away　tribal






land；　his　ecclesiastical　leaning　constantly　suggests　a　doubt　as






to　his　legal　doctrine。　Does　he　mean　to　lay　down　that　the　land　may






be　parted　with　generally　and　in　favour　of　anybody；　or　only　that






it　may　be　alienated　in　favour　of　the　Church？　This　difficulty　of






construction　has　an　interest　of　its　own。　I　am　myself　persuaded






that　the　influence　of　the　Christian　Church　on　law　has　been　very






generally　sought　for　in　a　wrong　quarter；　and　that　historians　of






law　have　too　much　overlooked　its　share　in　diffusing　the






conceptions　of　free　contract；　individual　property；　and






testamentary　succession；　through　the　regions　beyond　the　Roman






Empire　which　were　peopled　by　communities　held　together　by　the






primitive　tie　of　consanguinity。　It　is　generally　agreed　among






scholars　that　Churchmen　introduced　these　races　to　wills　and






bequests；　the　Brehon　tracts　suggest　to　me　at　least　that；　along






with　the　sacredness　of　bequests；　they　insisted　upon　the






sacredness　of　contracts；　and　it　is　well　known　that；　in　the






Ger