lect06- 第6部分

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　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；