lands。　Indeed；　it　has　been　suggested　that　its　fortunes　are
  identical　with　those　of　the　great　bulk　of　the　Irish　people。　It
  consisted　of　the　Fuidhirs；　the　strangers　or　fugitives　from　other
  territories；　men；　in　fact；　who　had　broken　the　original　tribal
  bond　which　gave　them　a　place　in　the　community；　and　who　had　to
  obtain　another　as　best　they　might　in　a　new　tribe　and　a　new　place。
  The　Brehon　law　shows　by　abundant　evidence　that　the　class　must
  have　been　a　numerous　one。　The　desertion　of　their　lands　by
  families　or　portions　of　families　is　repeatedly　spoken　of。　Under
  certain　circumstances；　indeed；　the　rupture　of　the　tribal　bond　and
  the　flight　of　those　who　break　it　are　eventualities　distinctly
  contemplated　by　the　law。　In　the　Brehon　law；　as　in　other　ancient
  juridical　systems；　the　corporate　responsibility　of　tribes；
  sub…tribes；　and　families　takes　the　place　of　that　responsibility
  for　crime；　and　even　to　some　extent　of　civil　obligation；　which；
  under　modern　institutions；　presses　upon　the　individual。　But　the
  responsibility　might　be　prevented　from　attaching　by　compelling　or
  inducing　a　member　of　the　group；　habitually　violent　or　vowed　to
  revenge；　to　withdraw　from　its　circle；　and　the　Book　of　Aicill
  gives　the　legal　procedure　which　is　to　be　observed　in　the
  expulsion；　the　tribe　paying　certain　fines　to　the　Chief　and　the
  Church　and　proclaiming　the　fugitive。　Such　provisions　assume　a
  certain　order　in　the　society　to　which　they　apply；　yet　we　know　as
  a　fact　that　for　many　centuries　it　was　violently　disordered。　The
  result　was　probably　to　fill　the　country　with　'broken　men；'　and
  such　men　could　only　find　a　home　and　protection　by　becoming
  Fuidhir　tenants。　Everything；　in　short；　which　tended　to　disturb
  the　Ireland　of　the　Brehon　laws　tended　to　multiply　this　particular
  class。
  Now；　the　Fuidhir　tenant　was　exclusively　a　dependant　of　the
  Chief；　and　waS　through　him　alone　connected　with　the　Tribe。　The
  responsibility　for　crime；　which　in　the　natural　state　of　Irish
  society　attached　to　the　Family　or　Tribe；　attached；　in　the　case　of
  the　Fuidhir；　to　the　Chief；　who　in　fact　became　to　this　class　of
  tenants　that　which　their　original　tribesmen　or　kindred　had　been。
  Moreover；　the　land　which　they　cultivated　in　their　place　of　refuge
  was　not　theirs　but　his。　They　were　the　first　'tenants　at　will；
  known　to　Ireland；　and　there　is　no　doubt　that　they　were　always
  theoretically　rackrentable。　The　'three　rents；'　says　the　Senchus
  Mor；　are　the　'rackrent　from　a　person　of　a　strange　tribe；　a　fair
  rent　from　one　of　the　tribe；　and　the　stipulated　rent　which　is　paid
  equally　by　the　tribe　and　the　strange　tribe。'　The　'person　from　a
  strange　tribe'　is　undoubtedly　the　Fuidhir；　and　though　the　Irish
  expression　translated　'rackrent'　cannot；　of　course；　in　the
  ancient　state　of　relation　between　population　and　land；　denote　an
  extreme　competition　rent；　it　certainty　indicates　an　extreme　rent；
  since　in　one　of　the　glosses　it　is　graphically　compared　to　the
  milk　of　a　cow　which　is　compelled　to　give　milk　every　month　to　the
  end　of　the　year；　At　the　same　time　there　is　no　reason　to　suppose
  that；　in　the　first　instance；　the　Fuidhir　tenants　were
  oppressively　treated　by　the　Chiefs。　The　Chief　had　a　strong
  interest　in　encouraging　them；　'he　brings　in　Fuidhirs；'　says　one
  of　the　tracts；　to　increase　his　wealth。'　The　interests　really
  injured　were　those　of　the　Tribe；　which　may　have　become　stronger
  for　defence　or　attack　by　the　addition　to　the　population　of　the
  territory；　but　which　certainly　suffered　as　a　body　of　joint
  proprietors　by　the　curtailment　of　the　waste　land　available　for
  pasture。　The　process　before　described　by　which　the　status　of　the
  tribesmen　declined　proportionately　to　the　growth　of　the　Chiefs'
  powers；　must　have　been　indirectly　hastened　in　several　ways　by　the
  introduction　of　Fuidhirs。　Such　indications　of　the　course　of
  change　as　the　Brehon　laws　furnish　are　curiously　in　harmony　with　a
  passage　from　a　work　recently　published；　which；　amid　much　other
  valuable　matter；　gives　a　most　vivid　picture　of　agricultural　life
  in　the　backward　Indian　province　of　Orissa。　Mr　Hunter；　the　writer；
  is　speaking　of　the　relation　of　landlord　and　tenant；　but　as　the
  'hereditary　peasantry'　referred　to　have；　as　against　their
  landlord；　rights　defined　by　law；　they　are　not　without　analogy　to
  the　tribesmen　of　an　ancient　Irish　territory。　'The　migratory
  husbandman；'　the　Fuidhir　of　modern　India；　'not　only　lost　his
  hereditary　position　in　his　own　village；　but　he　was　an　object　of
  dislike　and　suspicion　among　the　new　community　into　which　he
  thrust　himself。　For　every　accession　of　cultivators　tended　to
  better　the　position　of　the　landlord；　and　pro　tanto　to　injure　that
  of　the　（older）　cultivators。　So　long　as　the　land　on　an　estate
  continued　to　be　twice　as　much　as　the　hereditary　peasantry　could
  till；　the　resident　husbandmen　were　of　too　much　importance　to　be
  bullied　or　squeezed　into　discontent。　But　once　a　large　body　of
  immigrant　cultivators　had　grown　up；　this　primitive　check　on　the
  landlords'　exactions　was　removed。　The　migratory　tenants；
  therefore；　not　only　lost　their　position　in　their　old　villages；
  but　they　were　harassed　in　their　new　settlements。　Worse　than　all；
  they　were　to　a　certain　extent　confounded　with　the　landless　low
  castes　who；　destitute　of　the　local　connections　so　keenly　prized
  in　rural　society　as　the　evidences　of　respectability；　wandered
  about　as　hired　labourers　and　temporary　cultivators　of　surplus
  village　lands。'　（Hunter；　'Orissa；'　i。　57；　58）
  You　will　perhaps　have　divined　the　ground　of　the　special
  attention　which　has　been　claimed　for　these　Fuidhir　tenants；　and
  will　be　prepared　to　hear　that　their　peculiar　status　has　been
  supposed　to　have　a　bearing　on　those　agrarian　difficulties　which
  have　recurred　with　almost　mysterious　frequency　in　the　history　of
  Ireland。　It　is　certainly　a　striking　circumstance　that　in　the　far
  distance　of　Irish　tradition　we　come　upon　conflicts　between
  rent…paying　and　rent…receiving　tribes　　that；　at　the　first
  moment　when　our　information　respecting　Ireland　becomes　full　and
  trustworthy；　our　informants　dwell　with　indignant　emphasis　on　the
  'racking'　of　tenants　by　the　Irish　Chiefs　　and　that　the　relation
  of　Irish　landlord　and　Irish　tenant；　after　being　recognised　ever
  since　the　beginning　of　the　century　as　a　social　difficulty　of　the
  first　magnitude；　finally　became　a　political　difficulty　；　which
  was　settled　only　the　other　day。　I　do　not　say　that　there　is　not　a
  thread　of　connection　between　these　stages　of　Irish　agrarian
  history；　but　there　are　two　opposite　errors　into　which　we　may　be
  betrayed　if　we　assume　the　thread　to　have　been　uniform　throughout。
  In　the　first　place；　we　may　be　tempted　to　antedate　the　influence
  of　those　economical　laws　which　latterly　had　such　powerful
  operation　in　Ireland　until　their　energy　was　well…nigh　spent
  through　the　consequences　of　the　great　famine　of　1845…6。　An
  overflowing　population　and　a　limited　area　of　cultivable　land　had
  much　to　do；　and　probably　more　than　anything　else　to　do；　with　the
  condition　of　Ireland　during　that　period；　but　neither　the　one　nor
  the　other　was　a　characteristic　of　the　country　at　the　end　of　the
  sixteenth　century。　Next；　we　may　perhaps　be　inclined；　as　some
  writers　of　great　merit　seem　to　me　to　be；　to　post…date　the　social
  changes　which　caused　so　large　a　portion　of　the　soil　of　Ireland　to
  be　placed　under　the　uncontrolled　Law　of　the　Market；　or；　to　adopt
  the　ordinary　phraseology；　which　multiplied　'tenants　at　will'　to
  an　unusual　extent。　Doubtless；　if　we　had　to　found　an　opinion　as　to
  these　causes　exclusively　on　ancient　Irish　law；　and　on　modern
  English　real　property　law；　we　should　perhaps　come　to　the
  conclusion　that　an　archaic　system；　barely　recognising　absolute
  ownership；　had　been　violently　and　unnaturally　replaced　by　a
  system　of　far　more　modern　stamp　based　upon　abso