the appointment of the chieftains was elective, do not appear sufficient reasons, although these are the only ones assigned by those who have been at the trouble of considering the subject; neither are the confiscations of property quite sufficient to account for the effect; there have been great confiscations in other countries, and still they have flourished; the petty states of Greece where quite analogous to the chiefries (as they were called) in Ireland; and yet they seemed to flourish almost in proportion to their dissensions. Poland felt the bad effects of an elective monarchy more than any other country, and yet in point of civilization, it maintained a very respectable rank among the nations of Europe; but Ireland never, for an instant, made any progress in improvement till the reign of James I.

The cause of this extreme poverty, and of its long continuance, we must conclude, arose from the peculiar laws of property, which were in force under the Irish dynasties. These laws have been described by most writers as similar to the Kentish custom of gavel-kind, and indeed so little

attention was paid to the subject, that were it not for the researchies of Sir J. Davis, the knowledge of this singular usage would have been entirely lost.

The Brehon law of property, he tells us, was similar to the custom (as the English lawyers term it) of hodge podge. When any one of the sept died, his lands did not descend to his sons, but were divided among the whole sept; and for this purpose the chief of the sept made a new division of the whole lands belonging to the sept, and gave every one his part according to seniority. So that no man had a property which could descend to his children; and even during his own life, his possession of any particular spot was quite uncertain, being liable

to be constantly shuffled and changed by new partitions." The consequence of this was, that there was not a house of brick or stone among the Irish, down to the reign of Henry VII.; not even a garden nor orchard, nor well fenced nor improved field, neither village or town, nor in any respect the least provision for posterity.*

Warner gives the same account of this singular and pernicious law, on the authority of an old Irish manu

This monstrous custom, so opposite to the natural feelings of mankind, was probably perpetuated by the policy of the chiefs. In the first place, the power of partitioning being lodged in their hands, made them the most absolute of tyrants, being the dis pensers of the property, as well as of the liberty

erty of their subjects. In the second place, it had the appearance of adding to the number of their savage armies, for where there was no improvement or tillage, war was pursued as an occupation.

In the early history of Ireland we find several instances of chieftains discountenaneing tillage, and so late as Elizabeth's

شده

script. He says that" upon every death, the possessions of the whole sept were put together, and again divided among the survivors by the head, or coufinny, which divested each of them of his estate upon every new di vision. The coufinny would refuse to admit a tradesman to a share of his estate, as he had thereby degraded himself.

The reason of these perpetual subdivisions was, that each country, not having a revenue to maintain an army, the number of freeholds enabled a greater number of freeholders to maintain themselves; and as every holder of land was a soldier, the oftener a freehold divided, the greater number of men at arms.

reign, Morrison says, that "Sir Neal Garve restrained his people from ploughing, that they might assist him to do any mischief."*

If it were not foreign to our present purpose, we could wish to dwell longer on this subject; it is fertile in profitable contemplation to every Irishman; for at the same time that we would not let a fault pass uncensured in the vile system of government practised by the English in Ireland, we would still maintain its superiority over the barbarous tyrannies it displaced. We wish to repress the headlong and unmethodised desire for a separate and national government which pervades Ireland, and suggest a doubt whether modern chieftains would not be as liable to make as fatal errors in their civil code, as those which have been point-. ed out in the Brehon laws, and which Irishmen still attempt to extenuate and affect to admire. From the specimens left by the leaders of late rebellions, we have little

Con O'Neil, sirnamed Bacco, denounced a curse upon such of his posterity as should sow corn or build houses. See Camden.

doubt they would, and less doubt that the consequence would be a proportionate return to the degraded level of industry, morals, and manners, which existed during the savage independence of Ireland.

James enforced the laws of England throughout Ireland, extended the protection of government to the lower orders, and secured every man in possession of his property. These measures at once put an end to the power of the Irish chieftains, and extinguished the immediate cause of rebellions.

James himself enjoyed a tranquil reign, but unfortunately for his successor, he created or inflamed other causes of rebellion, which proved more inveterate than the animosity of the old chieftains. These consisted in enormous confiscations of property, and in a decided hostility commenced against the Roman Catholics.

Upon the flight of the Earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnel, 500,000 acres (which by the bye did not belong to them, but to their vassals) were confiscated; and to this cause may be fairly ascribed the share which Sir Phelim O'Neil took in the rebel

K