ThesystemwhichIhavebeendescribingmusthavecontributedpowerfullytodissolvethemoreancienttribalandfamilyorganisation。IftheChiefwhogaveandtheCeilewhoacceptedstockbelongedtothesameTribe，theeffectofthetransactionwastocreatearelationbetweenthem，notindeedaltogetherunlikethatoftribalconnection，butstillmateriallydifferentfromitinmanyrespectsandmuchmoretotheadvantageofthechieftain。ButthesuperiorfromwhomamantookstockwasnotalwaystheChiefofhisownSeptorTribe。SofarastheBrehonlawcanbesaidtoshowanyfavourtothenewsystemofvassalage，itencouragesitbetweennaturalchiefandnaturaltribesman；and，ontheotherhand，itputsdifficultiesinitswaywhenthereisanattempttoestablishitbetweenatribesmanandastrangeChief。ButthereseemtobeabundantadmissionsthatfreemendidoccasionallycommendthemselvesinthiswaytosuperiorsotherthantheirChiefs。averynobleman，asIsaidbefore，isassumedtobeasarulerichincattle，anditappearstohavebeenanobjectwitheveryonetodispersehisherdsbythepracticeofgivingstock。Theenrichedpeasantwhowasonhiswaytobeennobled，theBo-Aire，seemstohavehadCeileswhoacceptedstockfromhim，aswellashadthenobleshigherindegree。Accordingly，thenewgroupsformedoftheLordandhisVassals——ifwemaysomewhatantedatetheselastwords——weresometimeswhollydistinctfromtheoldgroupscomposedoftheChiefandhisClan。Nor，again，wasthenewrelationconfinedtoAires，ornoblemen，andCeiles，orfreebutnon-nobletribesmen。
TheBo-Airecertainly，andapparentlythehigherChiefsalso，acceptedstockonoccasionfromchieftainsmoreexaltedthanthemselves；andintheendto’givestock’cametomeanthesamethingastoassertfeudalsuperiority，andto’acceptstock’thesamething，whichinthelanguageofothersocietieswascalled’commendation。’Itisstrongevidenceofthesoundnessoftheconclusionsreachedoflateyearsbyhistoricalscholarsand，amongothers，byMrBryce，astothedeepandwideinfluenceexercisedbytheRomanEmpire，eveninitslaterform，thatofcoursebyafictiontheBrehonlawrepresentstheKingofIrelandas’acceptingstock’fromtheEmperor。’WhentheKingofEriniswithoutopposition’——thatis，astheexplanationruns，whenheholdstheportsofDublin，Waterford，andLimerick，whichwereusuallyinthehandsoftheDanes——’hereceivesstockfromtheKingoftheRomans’S。M。，ii。225。Thecommentarygoesontosaythatsometimes’itisbythesuccessorofPatrickthatthestockisgiventotheKingofErin；’andthisremarkablepassageseemstoshowthatanIrishwriterspokeofthesuccessorofStPatrick，whereawriterofthesameapproximateperiodinEnglandorontheEuropeanContinentwouldassuredlyhavespokenofthePope。
IhopeitisunnecessaryformetoinsistontheinterestwhichattachestothispartoftheBrehonlaw，ithasbeennotuncommon，upontheevidencefurnishedbytheusagesoftheScottishHighlanders，sharplytocontrastCeltictribalcustomswithfeudalrules；anddoubtlessbetweenthesecustomsandfeudalisminitsperfectedstatetherearedifferencesofthegreatestimportance。Yet，ifthetestimonyoftheBrehontractsmaybetrusted，suchdifferencesarose，notfromessentialdistinctions，but，insomemeasureatallevents，fromdistinctionsofdegreeincomparativesocialdevelopment。Thegermsoffeudalismlaydeepinthemoreancientsocialforms，andwerereadytoasserttheirvitalityeveninacountrylikeIreland，which，afteritwasonceChristianised，canhaveborrowednexttonoinstitutionsfromitsneighbours，cutoffasitwasfromtheContinentbydistance，andfromEnglandbystubbornnationalrepulsion。Itisalsoworthyofobservationthatthisnaturalgrowthoffeudalismwasnot，assomeeminentrecentwritershavesupposed，entirelydistinctfromtheprocessbywhichtheauthorityoftheChieforLordovertheTribeorVillagewasextended，butratherformedpartofit。Whiletheunappropriatedwaste-landswerefallingintohisdomain，thevillagersortribesmenwerecomingthroughnaturalagenciesunderhispersonalpower。
TheIrishpracticeof’givingstock’seemstomealsotoconnectitselfwithanothersetofphenomenawhichhavegenerallybeenthoughttobelongtoaverydifferentstageofhistory。Weobtainfromthelaw-tractsapictureofanaristocracyofwealthinitsmostprimitiveform；andweseethatthepossessionofthiswealthgavethenoblesanimmensepoweroverthenon-noblefreemenwhohadnothingbuttheirland。CaesarseemstometobeclearlyreferringtothesamestateofrelationsintheCelticsistersociety，whenhespeaksoftheGaulishchiefs，theEquites，havingoneprincipalsourceoftheirinfluenceinthenumberoftheirdebtors。B。G。，i。4；B。G。，vi。13。Now，youwillrememberhowuniformly，whenourknowledgeoftheancientworldcommences，wefindplebeianclassesdeeplyindebtedtoaristocraticorders。AtthebeginningofAthenianhistorywefindtheAtheniancommonaltythebondslavesthroughdebtoftheEupatrids；atthebeginningofRomanhistorywefindtheRomanCommonsinmoneybondagetothePatricians。Thefacthasbeenaccountedforinmanyways，andithasbeenplausiblysuggestedthatitwastheoccurrenceofrepeatedbadseasonswhichplacedthesmallfarmersoftheAtticandRomanterritoryatthemercyofwealthynobles。ButtheexplanationisimperfectunlesswekeepinmindthechieflessonoftheseBrehontracts，andrecollectthattherelativeimportanceofLandandCapitalhasbeenalteringthroughouthistory。ThegeneralpropositionthatLandislimitedinquantityandisdistinguishedbythislimitationfromallothercommoditieswhicharepracticallycapableofindefinitemultiplication，hasalwaysofcoursebeenabstractedlytrue；but，likemanyotherprinciplesofPoliticalEconomy，itsvaluedependsonthecircumstancestowhichitisapplied。Inveryancienttimeslandwasadrug，whilecapitalwasextremelyperishable，addedtowiththegreatestdifficulty，andlodgedinveryfewhands。Theproportionateimportanceofthetworequisitesofcultivationchangedveryslowly，anditisonlyquiterecentlythatinsomecountriesithasbeenwell-nighreversed。Theownershipoftheinstrumentsoftillageotherthanthelanditselfwasthus，inearlyagriculturalcommunities，apowerofthefirstorder，and，asitmaybebelievedthatastockoftheprimitivecapitallargerthanusualwasverygenerallyobtainedbyplunder，wecanunderstandthatthesestocksweremostlyinthehandsofnobleclasseswhoseoccupationwaswar，andwhoatalleventshadamonopolyoftheprofitsofoffice。
Theadvanceofcapitalatusuriousinterest，andthehelplessdegradationoftheborrowers，werethenaturalresultsofsucheconomicalconditions。ForthehonouroftheobscureandforgottenBrehonwritersoftheCain-SaerrathandtheCain-Aigillne，letitnotbeforgottenthattheirundertakingwasessentiallythesameasthatwhichwentfartoimmortaliseonegreatAthenianlegislator。BytheirpreciseanddetailedstatementsoftheproportionwhichistobepreservedbetweenthestockwhichtheChiefsuppliesandthereturnswhichthetenantpays，theyplainlyintendtointroducecertaintyandequityintoanaturallyoppressivesystem。Solon，dealingwithastateofsocietyinwhichcoinedmoneyhadprobablynotlongtakentheplaceofsomethinglikethe’seds’oftheBrehonlaw，hadnoexpedientopentohimbutthedebasementofthecurrencyandthecancellationofdebts；buthewasattackingthesameevilastheBrehonlawyers，andequallyinterferingwiththatfreedomofcontractwhichwearsaverydifferentaspectaccordingtotheconditionofthesocietyinwhichitprevails。