ownership；　had　been　violently　and　unnaturally　replaced　by　a
  system　of　far　more　modern　stamp　based　upon　absolute　property　in
  land。　But；　by　the　end　of　the　sixteenth　century；　our　evidence　is
  that　the　Chiefs　had　already　so　much　power　over　their　tenants　that
  any　addition　to　it　is　scarcely　conceivable。　'The　Lords　of　land；'
  says　Edmund　Spenser；　writing　not　later　than　1596；　'do　not　there
  use　to　set　out　their　land　to　farme；　for　tearme　of　years；　to　their
  tenants；　but　only　from　yeare　to　yeare；　or　during　pleasure；
  neither　indeed　will　the　Irish　tenant　or　husbandman　otherwise　take
  his　land　than　so　long　as　he　list　himselfe。　The　reason　thereof　in
  the　tenant　is；　for　that　the　landlords　there　use　most　shamefully
  to　racke　their　tenants；　laying　upon　them　coin　and　livery　at
  pleasure；　and　exacting　of　them　besides　his　covenants　what　he
  pleaseth。　So　that　the　poore　husbandman　either　dare　not　binde
  himselfe　to　him　for　longer　tearme；　or　thinketh；　by　his　continuall
  liberty　of　change；　to　keepe　his　landlord　the　rather　in　awe　from
  wronging　of　him。　And　the　reason　why　the　landlord　will　no　longer
  covenant　with　him　is；　for　that　he　dayly　looketh　after　change　and
  alteration；　and　hovereth　in　expectation　of　new　worlds。'　Sir　John
  Davis；　writing　rather　before　1613；　used　still　stronger　language：
  'The　Lord　is　an　absolute　Tyrant　and　the　Tennant　a　very　slave　and
  villain；　and　in　one　respect　more　miserable　than　Bond　Slaves。　For
  commonly　the　Bond　Slave　is　fed　by　his　Lord；　but　here　the　Lord　is
  fed　by　his　Bond　Slave。'
  There　is　very　little　in　common　bet　ween　the　miserable
  position　of　the　Irish　tenant　here　described　and　the　footing　of
  even　the　baser　sort　of　Ceiles；　or　villeins；　who　had　taken　stock
  from　the　Chief。　If　the　Brehon　law　is　to　be　trusted；　the　Daer
  Ceile　was　to　be　commiserated；　rather　because　he　had　derogated
  from　his　rights　as　a　free　tribesman　of　the　same　blood　with　the
  Chief；　than　because　he　had　exposed　himself　to　unbridled
  oppression。　Besides　paying　dues　more　of　the　nature　of　modern
  rent；　he　certainly　stood　under　that　unfortunate　liability　of
  supplying　periodical　refection　for　his　Chief　and　his　followers。
  But　not　only　was　the　Mount　of　his　dues　settled　by　the　law；　but
  the　very　size　of　the　joints　and　the　quality　of　the　ale　with　which
  he　regaled　his　Chief　were　minutely　and　expressly　regulated。　And；
  if　one　provision　of　the　law　is　clearer　than　another；　it　is　that
  the　normal　period　of　the　relation　of　tenancy　or　vassalage　was　not
  one　year；　but　seven　years。　How；　then；　are　we　to　explain　this
  discrepancy　？　Is　the　explanation　that　the　Brehon　theory　never　in
  reality　quite　corresponded　with　the　facts　？　It　may　be　so　to　some
  extent；　but　the　careful　student　of　the　Brehon　tracts　will　be
  inclined　to　think　that　the　general　bias　of　their　writers　was
  rather　towards　exaggeration　of　the　privileges　of　Chiefs　than
  towards　Overstatement　of　the　immunities　of　tribesmen。　Is　it；　on
  the　other　hand；　likely　that；　as　some　patriotic　Irishmen　have
  asserted；　Spenser　and　Davis　were　under　the　influence　of　English
  prejudice；　and　grossly　misrepresented　the　facts　of　Irish　life　in
  their　day？　Plenty　of　prejudice　of　a　certain　kind　is　disclosed　by
  their　writings；　and　I　doubt　not　that　they　were　capable　of
  occasionally　misunderstanding　what　they　saw。　Nothing；　however；
  which　they　have　written　suggests　that　they　were　likely　wilfully
  to　misdescribe　facts　open　to　their　observation。　I　can　quite
  conceive　that　some　things　in　the　relations　of　the　Chiefs　and
  tenants　escaped　them；　possibly　a　good　deal　of　freely…given
  loyalty　on　one　side；　and　of　kindliness　and　good　humoured
  joviality　on　the　other。　But　that　the　Irish　Chief　had　in　their　day
  the　power　or　right　which　they　attribute　to　him　cannot　seriously
  be　questioned。
  The　power　of　the　Irish　Chiefs　and　their　severity　to　their
  tenants　in　the　sixteenth　century　being　admitted；　they　have　been
  accounted　for；　as　I　before　stated；　by　supposing　that　the　Norman
  nobles　who　became　gradually　clothed　with　Irish　chieftainships
  the　Fitzgeralds；　the　Burkes；　and　the　Barrys　　abused　an
  authority　which　in　native　hands　would　have　been　subject　to
  natural　limitations；　and　thus　set　an　evil　example　to　all　the
  Chiefs　of　Ireland。　The　explanation　has　not　the　antecedent
  improbability　which　it　might　seem　to　have　at　first　sight；　but　I
  am　not　aware　that　there　is　positive　evidence　to　sustain　it。　I　owe
  a　far　more　plausible　theory　of　the　cause　of　change　to　Dr
  Sullivan；　who；　in　his　Introduction　（p。　cxxvi）；　has　suggested　that
  it　was　determined　by　the　steady　multiplication　of　Fuidhir
  tenants。　It　must　be　recollected　that　this　class　of　persons　would
  not　be　protected　by　the　primitive　or　natural　institutions
  springing　out　of　community　of　blood。　The　Fuidhir　was　not　a
  tribesman　but　an　alien。　In　all　societies　cemented　together　by
  kinship　the　position　of　the　person　who　has　lost　or　broken　the
  bond　of　union　is　always　extraordinarily　miserable。　He　has　not
  only　lost　his　natural　place　in　them；　but　they　have　no　room　for
  him　anywhere　else。　The　wretchedness　of　the　outcast　in　India；
  understood　as　the　man　who　has　lost　or　been　expelled　from　caste；
  does　not　arise　from　his　having　been　degraded　from　a　higher　to　a
  lower　social　standing；　but　from　his　having　no　standing　whatever；
  there　being　no　other　order　of　society　open　to　receive　him　when　he
  has　descended　from　his　own。　It　was　true　that　the　Fuidhir；　though
  he　had　lost　the　manifold　protection　of　his　family　and　tribe；　was
  not　actually　exposed　to　violent　wrong。　From　that　he　was　protected
  by　the　new　Chief　to　whom　he　had　attached　himself；　but　between　him
  and　this　Chief　there　was　nothing。　The　principle　would　always　be
  that　he　was　at　the　mercy　of　the　Chief。　At　the　utmost；　some　usages
  favourable　to　him　might　establish　themselves　through　lapse　of
  time；　but　they　would　have　none　of　the　obligatory　force　belonging
  to　the　rules　which　defined　the　rights　of　the　Chief　in　respect　of
  his　Saer…stock　and　Daerstock　tenants。　We　can　see　that　several　of
  the　duties　corresponding　to　these　rights　were　of　a　kind　to　invite
  abuse；　much　more　certainly　would　obligations　analogous　to　them；
  but　wholly　imposed　by　the　pleasure　of　the　Chief；　become　cruelly
  oppressive。　The　'refections'　of　the　Brehon　law　would；　by　a
  miserable　degradation；　become　（to　borrow　the　language　of　Spenser
  and　Davis）　coin　and　livery；　cuttings；　cosherings；　and　spendings；
  in　the　case　of　the　Fuidhirs。　Meanwhile　there　were　causes　at　work；
  powerfully　and　for　long　periods　of　time；　to　increase　the　numbers
  of　this　class。　Even　those　Irishmen　who　believe　that　in　the
  distant　past　there　was　once　a　tolerably　well…ordered　Ireland
  admit　that　for　many　centuries　their　country　was　racked　with
  perpetual　disturbance。　Danish　piracies；　intestine　feuds；
  Anglo…Norman　attempts　at　conquest　never　consistently　carried　out
  or　thoroughly　completed；　the　very　existence　of　the　Pale；　and
  above　all　the　policy　directed　from　it　of　playing　off　against　one
  another　the　Chiefs　beyond　its　borders；　are　allowed　by　all　to　have
  distracted　the　island　with　civil　war；　how　ever　the　responsibility
  for　it　is　to　be　apportioned。　But　the　process　is　one　which　must
  have　broken　up　tribes　far　and　wide；　and　broken　tribes　imply　a
  multitude　of　broken　men。　Even　in　brief　intervals　of　peace　the
  violent　habits　produced　by　constant　disorder　would　bring　about
  the　frequent　expulsion　by　families　of　members　for　whom　they
  refused　to　remain　responsible；　and　in　the　commoner　eventuality　of
  war　whole　fragments　would　be　from　time　to　time　torn　away　from
  tribes　and　their　atoms　scattered　in　every　part　of　Ireland。　it　is
  therefore；　a　conjecture　possessing　a　very　high　degree　of
  plausibility；　that　the　tenantry　of　the　Irish　Chiefs　whose
  sufferings　provoked　the　indignation　of　Spenser　and　Davis
  consisted　largely　of　Fuidhirs。
  The　explanation　may；　howeve