’Hewhodoesnotgiveapledgetofastingisanevaderofall；hewhodisregardsallthingsshallnotbepaidbyGodorman。’ButanIrishBrehoncouldscarcelymakeanydistinctassertiononthesubject，sincefastinghadnowbecomeaspecificordinanceoftheChristianChurch，anditsconditionandspiritualeffectswereexpresslydefinedbytheChristianpriesthood。Theoretically，I
shouldstate，apersonwhorefusedunjustlytoyieldtofastinghadhislegalliabilitiesconsiderablyincreased，atleast，accordingtothedictaoftheBrehoncommentators；butsuchprovisionsonlybringustothedifficultyofwhichIfirstspoke，andraiseanewthequestionoftheexactvalueoflegalrulesataperiodwhenCourtsofJusticearenotasyetarmedwithresistlesspowersofcompellingattendanceandsubmission。
IfwearejustifiedintracingthepedigreeoftheBrehonCodetoasystemenforcedbysupernaturalsanctions，weareabletocontrastitinvariouswayswithotherbodiesoflawinrespectofitsmodeofdevelopment。ItcloselyresemblestheHindoolaw，inasmuchasitconsistsofwhatwasinallprobabilityanoriginalbasisofAryanusagevastlyenlargedbyasuperstructureofinterpretationwhichalongsuccessionofprofessionalcommentatorshaveelected；butitcannothavehadanysuchsacredness，andconsequentlyanysuchauthority，astheBrahminicaljurisprudence。BoththeBrahminsandtheBrehonsassumethatKingsandJudgeswillenforcetheirlaw，andemphaticallyenjoinonthemitsenforcement；but，whiletheBrahmincoulddeclarethatneglectordisobediencewouldbefollowedbyendlessdegradationandtorment，theBrehoncouldonlyassertthattheunlearnedbrotherwhopronouncedafalsejudgmentwouldfindblotchescomeonhischeeks，andthattheChiefwhoallowedsoundusagetobedepartedfromwouldbringbadweatheronhiscountry。ThedevelopmentoftheBrehonlawwasagainparalleltothatwhichthereisstrongreasonforsupposingtheRomanlawtohaveallowedinearlytimes。ThewriterofthePrefacetotheThirdVolume，fromwhichIhavemorethanoncequoted，citessomeobservationswhichIpublishedseveralyearsagoonthesubjectoftheextensionoftheRomanjurisprudencebytheagencyknownastheResponsaPrudentum，theaccumulatedanswersor，astheBrehonphraseis，thejudgmentsofmanysuccessivegenerationsoffamousRomanlawyers；andheadoptsmyaccountasgivingthemostprobableexplanationofthegrowthoftheBrehonlaw。ButintheRomanStateatestwasalwaysappliedtothe’answersofthelearned，’whichwasnotapplied，ornotsystematicallyapplied，tothejudgmentsoftheBrehons。WeneverknowtheRomansexceptassubjecttooneofthestrongestofcentralgovernments，whicharmedthelawcourtswiththeforceatitscommand。AlthoughtheRomansystemdidnotworkexactlyinthewaytowhichourEnglishexperiencehasaccustomedus，therecan，ofcourse，benodoubtthattheultimatecriterionofthevalidityofprofessionallegalopinionatRome，aselsewhere，wastheactionofCourtsofJusticeenforcingrightsanddutiesinconformitywithsuchopinion。ButinancientIrelanditisatleastdoubtfulwhethertherewasever，inoursenseofthewords，acentralgovernment；itisalsodoubtfulwhetherthepublicforceatthecommandofanyrulerorrulerswaseversystematicallyexertedthroughthemechanismofCourtsofJustice；anditisatleastatenableviewthattheinstitutionswhichstoodintheplaceofCourtsofJusticeonlyexercisedjurisdictionthroughthevoluntarysubmissionofintendinglitigants。
Perhaps，however，fromourpresentpointofview，thestrongestcontrastisbetweentheancientlawofIrelandandthelawofEnglandataperiodwhichanEnglishlawyerwouldnotcallrecent。TheadministrationofjusticeinEngland，fromcomparativelyearlytimes，hasbeenmorestronglycentralisedthaninanyotherEuropeancountry；butinIrelandtherewasnocentralgovernmenttonervethearmofthelaw。TheprocessoftheEnglishCourtshasforcenturiespastbeenpracticallyirresistible；theprocessoftheIrishCourts，evenifitwascompulsory，wasattheutmostextremelyweak。TheIrishlawwasdevelopedbyhereditarycommentators；butweinEnglandhavealwaysattributedfarlessauthoritythandoesanyEuropeanContinentalcommunitytotheunofficialcommentariesofthemostlearnedwritersoftextbooks。Weobtainourlaw，andadjustittotheneedsofeachsuccessivegeneration，eitherthroughlegislativeenactmentorthroughthedecisionsofourjudgesonisolatedgroupsoffactsestablishedbythemostlaboriousmethods。But，asIhavealreadystated，theopiniontowhichI
inclineis，thatnopartoftheBrehonlawhaditsorigininlegislation。TheauthorofinnovationandimprovementwasthelearnedBrehon，andtheBrehonappearstohaveinventedatpleasurethefactswhichheusedastheframeworkforhislegaldoctrine。Hisinventionwasnecessarilylimitedbyhisexperience，andhencethecasessuggestedinthelaw-tractspossessgreatinterest，asthrowinglightonthesocietyamidwhichtheywerecomposed；butthesecasesseemtobepurelyhypothetical，andonlyintendedtoillustratetherulewhichhappenstobeunderdiscussion。