first　Revolution　was　this：　the　land…law　of　the　people　superseded
  the　land…law　of　the　nobles；　In　England　the　converse　process　has
  been　gone　through；　and　what　has　occurred　is　obviously　in　harmony
  with　much　else　in　English　history。　The　system　of　the　nobles　has
  become　in　all　essential　particulars　the　system　of　the　people。　The
  rule　of　primogeniture；　which　once　applied　only　to　knightly
  holdings；　came　to　apply　to　the　great　bulk　of　English　tenures；
  except　the　Gavelkind　of　Kent　and　some　others　of　merely　local
  importance。　This　part　of　the　change　took　place　at　a　remote　epoch；
  and　its　circumstances　are　involved　in　much　obscurity；　and　we　know
  little　more　of　it　with　certainty　than　that　it　was　rapidly
  proceeding　between　the　time　at　which　Glanville　and　the　time　at
  which　Bracton　wrote。　Glanville；　probably　not　earlier　than　the
  thirty…third　year　of　Henry　the　Second's　reign；　expresses　himself
  as　if　the　general　rule　of　law　caused　lands　held　by　free
  cultivators　in　socage　to　be　divided　equally　between　all　the　male
  children　at　the　death　of　the　last　owner；　Bracton；　probably　not
  later　than　the　fifty…second　year　of　Henry　the　Third；　writes　as　if
  the　rule　of　primogeniture　applied　universally　to　military　tenures
  and　generally　to　socage　tenures。　But　another　branch　of　the
  process　was　postponed　almost　to　our　own　day。　Possibly　not　many
  Englishmen　have　recognised　with　as　much　clearness　as　a　recent
  French　writer　（Doniol；　'La　Revolution　Fran鏰ise　et　la　F閛dalit*'）
  that　the　transmutation　of　customary　and　copyhold　into　freehold
  property；　which　has　been　proceeding　for　about　forty　years　under
  the　conduct　of　the　Copyhold　and　Enclosure　Commissioners；　is　the
  peaceful　and　insensible　removal　of　a　grievance　which　did　more
  than　any　other　to　bring　about　the　first　French　Revolution　and　to
  prevent　the　re…establishment　of　the　ancient　political　order。　But
  long　before　there　was　a　Copyhold　Commission；　the　great　mass　of
  English　landed　property　had　assumed　certain　characteristics　which
  strongly　distinguished　it　from　the　peasant　property　of　the
  Continent　as　it　existed　before　it　was　affected　by　the　French
  Codes；　and　as　it　is　still　found　in　some　countries。　This　last　form
  of　proprietorship　was　very　generally　fettered　by　the　duty　of
  cultivation　in　some　particular　way；　and；　as　a　rule；　could　not　be
  dealt　with　so　as　to　bar　the　rights　reserved　to　the　children　and
  widow　of　the　owner　by　the　law　of　succession。　The　traces　of　a
  similar　species　of　ownership；　probably　once　widely　diffused；　may
  still　be　here　and　there　discerned　through　the　customs　of
  particular　English　manors。　I　repeat　the　opinion　which　I　expressed
  three　years　ago；　that　our　modern　English　conception　of　absolute
  property　in　land　is　really　descended　from　the　special
  proprietorship　enjoyed　by　the　Lord；　and　more　anciently　by　the
  tribal　Chief；　in　his　own　Domain。　It　would　be　out　of　place　to
  enter　here　on　a　discussion　of　the　changes　which　seem　to　me
  desirable　in　order　to　make　the　soil　of　England　as　freely
  exchangeable　as　the　theory　now　generally　accepted　demands；　but　to
  the　principle　of　several　and　absolute　property　in　land　I　hold
  this　country　to　be　committed。　I　believe　I　state　the　inference
  suggested　by　all　known　legal　history　when　I　say　that　there　can　be
  no　material　advance　in　civilisation　unless　landed　property　is
  held　by　groups　at　least　as　small　as　Families；　and　I　again　remind
  you　that　we　are　indebted　to　the　peculiarly　absolute　English　form
  of　ownership　for　such　an　achievement　as　the　cultivation　of　the
  soil　of　North　America。
  Before　describing　to　you　the　new　light　which　the　Ancient　Laws
  of　Ireland　throw　on　the　primitive　condition　of　the　institutions
  of　which　I　have　been　speaking；　let　me　give　you　one　word　of
  caution　as　to　the　statements　of　modern　Irish　writers　respecting
  the　original　relations　of　the　Irish　Tribe　and　of　the　Irish　Tribal
  Chief。　Unhappily　the　subject　has　been　discussed　in　the　spirit　of
  the　later　agrarian　history　of　Ireland。　On　the　one　hand；　some
  disputants　have　thought　to　serve　a　patriotic　purpose　by
  contending　that　the　land　of　each　Tribe　belonged　absolutely　to
  itself　and　was　its　common　property；　and　that　the　Chief　was　a　mere
  administrative　officer；　rewarded　for　his　services　in　making　a
  fair　distribution　of　the　territory　among　the　tribesmen　by　a
  rather　larger　share　of　its　area　than　the　rest；　which　was　allotted
  to　him　as　his　domain。　Contrariwise；　some　writers；　not　perhaps
  actuated　by　much　kindliness　to　the　Irish　people；　have　at　least
  suggested　that　they　were　always　cruelly　oppressed　by　their
  superiors；　and　probably　by　their　natural　chiefs　more　than　any
  others。　These　authors　point　to　the　strong　evidence　of　oppression
  by　the　Chiefs　which　the　books　of　the　English　observers　of　Ireland
  contain。　Edmund　Spenser　and　Sir　John　Davis　cannot　have　merely
  intended　to　calumniate　the　Irish　native　aristocracy　when　they
  emphatica1ly　declared　that　the　'chiefs　do　most　shamefully
  rackrent　their　tenants；'　and　spoke　with　vehement　indignation　of
  the　exactions　from　which　the　tribesmen　suffered；　the　'coshering；'
  and　the　'coin　and　livery；'　which　occur　over　and　over　again　in
  their　pages。　A　third　school；　of　a　very　different　order　from
  these；　has　representatives　among　the　most　learned　Irishmen　of　our
  day。　They　resent　the　assertion　that　the　land　belonged　to　the
  tribe　in　common　as　practically　imputing　to　the　ancient　Irish　that
  utter　barbarism　to　which　private　property　is　unknown。　They　say
  that　traces　of　ownership　jealously　guarded　are　found　in　all　parts
  of　the　Brehon　laws；　and　they　are　on　the　whole　apt　to　speak　of　the
  vassalage　to　the　Chief　which　these　laws　attribute　to　the
  tribesmen　as　if　it　implied　something　like　modern　tenancy　in　the
  latter　and　modern　ownership　in　the　former。　But　they　say　that　the
  relation　of　landlord　and　tenant　was　regulated　by　careful　and
  kindly　provisions；　and　they　ascribe　the　degradation　of　the
  system；　like　the　other　evils　of　Ireland；　to　English　cupidity　and
  ignorance。　The　Norman　nobles　who　first　settled　in　Ireland　are
  well　known　to　have　become　in　time　Chieftains　of　Irish　Tribes；　and
  it　is　suggested　that　they　were　the　first　to　forget　their　duties
  to　their　tenants　and　to　think　of　nothing　but　their　privileges。
  Nor　is　there　anything　incredible　in　this　last　assumption。　An
  English　settler　in　India　who　buys　land　there　is　often　reputed　a
  harder　landlord　than　the　native　zemindars；　his　neighbours；　not
  because　he　intends　to　be　harsher　（indeed　in　some　things　he　is
  usually　far　more　considerate　and　bountiful）；　but　because　he　is
  accustomed　to　a　stricter　system　and　cannot　accommodate　himself　to
  the　loose　and　irregular　play　of　relations　between　native
  landowner　and　native　tenant。
  I　cannot　wholly　concur　in　any　one　of　these　theories
  concerning　Chief　and　Tribe。　Each　seems　to　me　to　contain　a　portion
  of　truth；　but　not　the　whole。　Let　me　first　say　that　the　whole
  land…system　shadowed　forth　in　the　Brehon　laws　does　seem　to　me　to
  have　for　its　basis　the　primary　ownership　of　the　tribe…land　by　the
  Tribe。　It　is　also　true　that　the　Chief　appears　to　exercise　certain
  administrative　duties　in　respect　of　this　land；　and　that　he　has　a
  specific　portion　of　the　tribe…land　allotted　to　him；　in　the
  vicinity　of　his　residence　or　stronghold；　for　the　maintenance　of
  his　household　and　relatives。　But　this　is　not　all。　As　we　see　the
  system　through　the　law；　it　is　not　stationary；　but　shifting；
  developing；　disintegrating；　re…combining。　Even　according　to　the
  texts　apparently　oldest；　much　of　the　tribal　territory　appears　to
  have　been　permanently　alienated　to　sub…tribes；　families；　or
  dependent　chiefs；　and　the　glosses　and　commentaries　show　that；
  before　they　were　written；　this　process　had　gone　very　far　indeed。
  Whatever；　again；　may　have　been　the　original　dignity　and　authority
  of　the　Chief；　they　are　plainly　growing；　not