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　goes　on
  to　say　that　sometimes'　it　is　by　the　successor　of　Patrick　that　the
  stock　is　given　to　the　King　of　Erin；　'and　this　remarkable　passage
  seems　to　show　that　an　Irish　writer　spoke　of　the　successor　of　St
  Patrick；　where　a　writer　of　the　same　approximate　period　in　England
  or　on　the　European　Continent　would　assuredly　have　spoken　of　the
  Pope。
  I　hope　it　is　unnecessary　for　me　to　insist　on　the　interest
  which　attaches　to　this　part　of　the　Brehon　law；　it　has　been　not
  uncommon；　upon　the　evidence　furnished　by　the　usages　of　the
  Scottish　Highlanders；　sharply　to　contrast　Celtic　tribal　customs
  with　feudal　rules；　and　doubtless　between　these　customs　and
  feudalism　in　its　perfected　state　there　are　differences　of　the
  greatest　importance。　Yet；　if　the　testimony　of　the　Brehon　tracts
  may　be　trusted；　such　differences　arose；　not　from　essential
  distinctions；　but；　in　some　measure　at　all　events；　from
  distinctions　of　degree　in　comparative　social　development。　The
  germs　of　feudalism　lay　deep　in　the　more　ancient　social　forms；　and
  were　ready　to　assert　their　vitality　even　in　a　country　like
  Ireland；　which；　after　it　was　once　Christianised；　can　have
  borrowed　next　to　no　institutions　from　its　neighbours；　cut　off　as
  it　was　from　the　Continent　by　distance；　and　from　England　by
  stubborn　national　repulsion。　It　is　also　worthy　of　observation
  that　this　natural　growth　of　feudalism　was　not；　as　some　eminent
  recent　writers　have　supposed；　entirely　distinct　from　the　process
  by　which　the　authority　of　the　Chief　or　Lord　over　the　Tribe　or
  Village　was　extended；　but　rather　formed　part　of　it。　While　the
  unappropriated　waste…lands　were　falling　into　his　domain；　the
  villagers　or　tribesmen　were　coming　through　natural　agencies　under
  his　personal　power。
  The　Irish　practice　of　'giving　stock'　seems　to　me　also　to
  connect　itself　with　another　set　of　phenomena　which　have　generally
  been　thought　to　belong　to　a　very　different　stage　of　history。　We
  obtain　from　the　law…tracts　a　picture　of　an　aristocracy　of　wealth
  in　its　most　primitive　form；　and　we　see　that　the　possession　of
  this　wealth　gave　the　nobles　an　immense　power　over　the　non…noble
  freemen　who　had　nothing　but　their　land。　Caesar　seems　to　me　to　be
  clearly　referring　to　the　same　state　of　relations　in　the　Celtic
  sister　society；　when　he　speaks　of　the　Gaulish　chiefs；　the
  Equites；　having　one　principal　source　of　their　influence　in　the
  number　of　their　debtors。　（B。　G。；　i。　4；　B。　G。；　vi。　13。）　Now；　you
  will　remember　how　uniformly；　when　our　knowledge　of　the　ancient
  world　commences；　we　find　plebeian　classes　deeply　indebted　to
  aristocratic　orders。　At　the　beginning　of　Athenian　history　we　find
  the　Athenian　commonalty　the　bondslaves　through　debt　of　the
  Eupatrids；　at　the　beginning　of　Roman　history　we　find　the　Roman
  Commons　in　money　bondage　to　the　Patricians。　The　fact　has　been
  accounted　for　in　many　ways；　and　it　has　been　plausibly　suggested
  that　it　was　the　occurrence　of　repeated　bad　seasons　which　placed
  the　small　farmers　of　the　Attic　and　Roman　territory　at　the　mercy
  of　wealthy　nobles。　But　the　explanation　is　imperfect　unless　we
  keep　in　mind　the　chief　lesson　of　these　Brehon　tracts；　and
  recollect　that　the　relative　importance　of　Land　and　Capital　has
  been　altering　throughout　history。　The　general　proposition　that
  Land　is　limited　in　quantity　and　is　distinguished　by　this
  limitation　from　all　other　commodities　which　are　practically
  capable　of　indefinite　multiplic