not

ecessors, had sung," and "put a thread of poetry round it for Patrick. The Irish of old got through a good deal of quarrelling, and seemed to like it. In these degenerate days,' brute force but more Parliamentary methods would obtain, in place of ancient ways, if the sister island managed her own affairs. Those who hold that plenty of opposition is the secret of success in Parliamentary government will not refuse Ireland Home Rule today because of the pugnacity of the descendants of a warlike race. A curious inherited remnant of a custom seems to underlie the following proceeding, which occurred in Munster about two years ago. Two sisters, who were in business, had a habit of putting off the payment of debts as long as possible. A tradeswoman in their town was their creditor for a considerable sum. The plan she pursued was to hire a deputy to fast upon" her debtors. As their business would have suffered by a scandal, the sisters bought off the "faster" by the speedy liquidation of their debt. The following account, taken mainly from the learned introduction to the fourth volume of the Senchus Mor, shows the widowed shopkeeper to have acted, not, as she imagined, on a clever and original plan, but on an hereditary memory.

The Athgabail," or Law of Distress, seems to have been the universal remedy by which rights were vindicated and wrongs redressed. Under it, the plaintiff or creditor, having first given the proper notice, proceeded, in the case of a defendant or debtor not of chieftain grade, to distrain. If, however, the defendant or debtor were a person of chieftain grade, it was necessary not only to give notice, but also "to fast upon him." This fasting upon him consisted in going to his residence, and waiting there for a certain time without food. The "Athgabail" is so curious throughout that we are inclined to extend our quotation: If the plaintiff did not within a certain time receive satisfaction for his claim, or a pledge therefor, he forthwith, accompanied by a law agent, witnesses and others, seized his distress. The distress when received was in certain cases liable to a stay" ("anadh"), which was a period varying

66

according to fixed rules, during which the debtor received back the distress, and retained it in his own keeping, the creditor having a lien upon it. This was a distress with time," but in other cases an "immediate distress" was made, the peculiarity of which was that, during the fixed period of the stay, the distress was never allowed to remain in the debtor's possession, but in that of the creditor, or in one of the recognized greens or pounds. If the debt was not paid by the end of the stay, the creditor took the distress away, and put it into one of the pounds. He then notified this fact to the debtor. The delay in pound (dithim) was fixed according to the nature of the cattle distrained upon. Feeding and tending expenses ran against the distress. At the end of the delay in pound the forfeiting time began to run, during which the distress became forfeited at the rate of three "seds" (cows) a day until entirely forfeited. The entire value of the distress might exactly equal the debt, in which case the latter was considered liquidated. If the forfeited distress did not equal the debt, then a second distress was taken; or if it exceeded the distress, the overplus was returned. The creditor and his law agent managed these proceedings with the aid of the witnesses of the several steps, and other necessary parties. The debtor might, instead of letting his cattle go, give his creditor an article of value, or a hostage in the person of his own son, in pledge that he would within a given time try the right to the distress by law. If the creditor were unfaithful, the pledge became forfeit for the original debt. At any time after the end of the dithim' the debtor could recover his cattle by paying his debt and such expenses as had been incurred; later than the "delay in pound," he could only redeem such as were still unforfeited.

66

Many variations occur, but such is the general outline of the ordinary law of distress, as shown forth in the Senchus Mor. Sean, son of Aighe, passed the first judgment regarding distress. He lived about 100 B.C. Sir Henry Maine has pointed out the curious analogy almost amounting to identitybetween ancient Irish and Hindoo law on this point.

has freely criticised their provisions, has himself furnished the strongest testimony to the extensive and beneficial effect of the ancient laws and judicial system of Ireland upon the character of the Irish race, in those remarkable words with which he concludes his 'Dis covery of the true Causes why Ireland was never entirely Subdued and brought under Obedience by the Crown of England, until the beginning of His Majesty's (James I.) happy Reign.' 'There is,' says Sir John Davis, no nation under the sun that doth love equal and indifferent justice better than the Irish, or will rest better satisfied with the execution thereof, although it be against themselves, so as they may have the protection and benefit of the law, when upon just cause they do desire it.'"' The Senchus Mor was in force over the whole of Ireland from St. Patrick's time till the end of the eighth century-a period marked by a wonderful growth of civilization and learning. Ireland gained at this period the name of "The Isle of Saints. She sent zealous missionaries forth to evangelize Central Europe, and learned men to civilize all parts of the continent. Irish monastic schools produced, among others, Virgilius, Bishop of Salzburg, and Johannes Scotus. Irish centres of learning were much frequented by foreign ecclesiastics, because of the peace and security enjoyed there where Brehon law was enforced, and also for the sake of the teaching they afforded, and their wonderful libraries.

Ancient Irish law may be said to be the mould out of which has come the spirit of that race, which in the present time is nearly as numerous in Great Britain as in Erin, and which numbers its millions in America and Australia. The Irishman is generally unconscious of it, but the old ways, in great things and in small, seem literally bred in his bone. The upstart English politician dismisses Irish discontent as pigheadedness," sheer cussedness, the like; and asks, Have we not given the Irish English institutions? Don't we treat them as we treat Hodge ?" But if even this were accurately true, is it not, still, the fable of "The Fox and the Stork"? The reasoning mind sees in fox and in stork inherited peculiarities

or

which fit each for certain conditions of existence, and unfit each for certain other conditions. Walpole's "Kingdom of Ireland," the work of an enlightened Englishman, and, it is said, a Conservative in politics, is a book which it should be made compulsory to read by all those thousands who, to-day, are chattering more or less ignorantly upon the Irish Question. Mr. Walpole gives a clear and accurate account both of ancient land tenure in Ireland, and of the feudal system by which it was sought to drive the old ways out. He considers feudal tenure to have been the parent of the "Land Question," Ireland's bane for 700 years! Its root idea was that all the soil belonged to the king, and could be granted by him to his followers, on condition that they and their retainers rendered him service in the field at his good will and pleasure. Soon grants became, with their obligations, hereditary, and passed to the heirs of grantees without the consent of the tenants, who, by the process of subinfeudation, were bound to the lord by the grantee, just as he was bound to the king. The feudal system could not be applied to Ireland without revolutionizing society, because the tribal system was firmly established there. Mr. Walpole says, Its application was in the eyes of the Irish nothing but a highhanded invasion of the rights of prop. erty, and an act of shameful injustice.' Under the feudal system the land was inalienable; it reverted to the king on the failure of heirs to the grantee or his successors, and also if he became attainted for treason. (Of this latter provision the Crown availed itself in regard to millions of acres in Ireland from first to last.) In time the whole island came to be parcelled out, nominally at least, in enormous grants, among a few individuals. Under the native system, on the other hand, the common land of the tribe was enjoyed by all the tribesmen, partly for grazing and partly for tillage. Heads of households had their portions allotted to them. The right of user was based on sub-membership only, and the ownership vested in the tribe. The male members of the stirps" were considered as partners in the specifically appropriated land. The law of primogeniture was unknown. On the death

of a father, his sons, who were householders under the Irish custom of gavelkind, took each a share of his holding. They had been his partners during his life, and his property survived to them as co-owners. Under the Geilfine system, the original acquirer of the land, as each son grew up, planted him out, as it were, on his share of the paternal acres. (The man who lately set up his son of twenty and his new daughter-inlaw in the "foine pigstye" his English landlord's agent had just built for him -reinstating the pig in the family livingroom-was certainly actuated by an hereditary instinct !) This planting-out was done successively to four sons, the fifth-the favored one-remained with his father, and inherited the original home. By which two things are evident first, that it is no modern characteristic of the Irish race to have large families; and, second, that when in Munster they talk to-day of a favorite child as the fair-haired boy," and in Leinster of the white-headed boy," the peasants allude-generally without knowing it to the geilfine system, geil being fair or white, and fine, a family. (The name of geilfine originally applied to the group of five families, however, not to the fifth son, taken separately.)

Each of the five in the group planted out other five, until from each of the first five there were seventeen offshoots, when the process ceased, and no further subdivision was made. When a group became extinct, the lands were taken by the other groups of the family. And nowadays, the Irish peasant looks within" and sees these things "mirrored there." The result is an impulse

which works against the system by law established, which runs counter to all his inherited instincts. There is a narrow view dignified by the name common-sense, which would legislate for the present as if there never had been a past. Its advocates tender such advice to Irish malcontents as follows: "Take things as they are: Never look back: Thrive under a system under which others thrive: Believe in the newly-awakened conscience of England: Say where the shoe pinches, and all will be set right.' Could anything well be more unscientific than this so-called common-sense? Are not men the sheer product of the past? Ignoring it, they yet daily reproduce it. It is a healthy discontent that nerves the round man to struggle out of the square hole. Must not a shoe ever pinch where sandals, not shoes, are the want? It is said that the early rays of a rising truth are first caught in France; they certainly often find their earliest artistic expression there. And what is the message of the French scientific novel but the doctrine of heredity? "Heritage, inevitable as birth;' "A heart without a livery, naked manhood," exists not for the thoughtful. But, alas, the Politician is not thoughtful! He calls on thought,

"

March 3, 1899 (2 A.M.).-Home from the House. Second reading carried by a majority of over 100. Our illustrious leader literally surpassed himself in the speech with which he closed the debate, and when he sat down every one felt that the success of the Bill was assured. Well, the struggle has been a long and obstinate one, and we, the old and faith

ful supporters of the policy which seems at last within sight of victory, have indeed good reason to rejoice. For years we have labored in Parliament, on the platform, in the press, to indoctrinate the people with the principles now about to prevail. For months we have borne the brunt of the hottest electoral conflict ever waged in this country, and

stemmed manfully the fiercest and foulest tide of obloquy that ever threatened a politician's foothold. And now-now the victory is as good as won. It is beyond a doubt that ere many weeks are past the Quinquennial Bill will have become law. The Quinquennial Bill! Yes, the style and title of the measure will rather puzzle the future student of English history when he first meets with it in connection with the furious strife which it has aroused. I can imagine it bothering the New Zealander not a little. That is, of course, supposing him to have already met in his historical studies with the Triennial Act and the Septennial Act, and to have noted that the promotion and passing of both those statutes, though attended with a certain amount of political controversy, produced nothing like the convulsion with which the country has been rent in the fight over this Bill. He will no doubt wonder how it came about that, though the duration of Parliaments could be limited to three and again extended to seven years without very profoundly agitating the country, the proposal, as he will at first assume it to be, to fix that period at five years had so disturbing an effect. But when that New Zealander has been informed by his "coach" that the Quinquennial Act takes its name not from the periods for which Parliaments are to exist but from the intervals at which they are to assemble, our inquiring young Australasian will perhaps begin to get a glimmering of the truth. If in point of intelligence he be a fairly typical specimen of the highly developed race, as no doubt it will then be, to which he belongs, he will at once perceive that the difference in political significance between these two meanings of the word Quinquennial as applied to a Bill of this kind is no unimportant one. It is to be hoped that his tutor will succeed in conveying to him a fairly correct notion-completely adequate it cannot be of the events which have led to this new departure, as I suppose we must call it, in English political history."

March 31.-As I anticipated, the Bill is going through Committee with perfect ease. The neck of the opposition to it seems broken; and the Old Radicals, who curiously enough are now the only

genuine upholders of the present system, are fighting without any heart. We expect the Report stage of the Bill by the end of next week at latest.

April 15.-Third reading agreed to last night without a division, the Opposition being too dispirited to challenge the Speaker's declaration that the Ayes had it. What a collapse ! And what a victory! Now that its full accomplishment is so near, I begin, as a good citizen should, to feel a tremor or two of doubt. Is it for the best? But why ask that question of the inevitable? If ever in the world's history any measure has demonstrated its own necessity, it is this.

April 16-Bill read a first time in the Lords, and second reading fixed for the Ist of May. No one can say that the nation has acted precipitately. It is just ten years ago to-day that the Royal assent was given to the Bill for the disfranchisement of Ireland, and it will be eight years on Monday next since we passed the Act which enables us to readmit Irish representatives by sessional resolution of the House-a compromise worthy, as we all agreed at the time, of the best traditions of English statesmanship. That resolution-except of course for the two sessions of the Imperial Parliament six and five years ago, during which the brief and disastrous experiment of Home Rule was being tried in Dublin-has been regularly renewed. Ever since the Battle of Trim and the rout of the Nationalist army and party in Ireland, we have readmitted Irish representatives to the House under this sessional order almost as a matter of course. In common justice, in fact, it had to be done. Over two years of relief from the presence of the Irish proved to demonstration that palaver in Parliament has no special nationality. vacuum created by the expulsion of the Irish members did not remain a vacuum for twenty-four hours. English, Scotch, and Welsh garrulity poured into it as water would pour in through a hole in a diving-bell. Since then, what experiment has not been tried to check chatter and promote work? First there was "the fifteen minutes rule."' Ah! how well I remember the high expectations with which we added that to the standing orders, and the douche of cold

The