It is hardly possible that so complicated a system should have long remained intact through all the changes produced in the social system of these tribes by the mere course of time; and it probably, at least to some extent, broke down under the growing importance of the family of the oldest cadet, which became more and more independent the longer it was separated from that of the chief, and so would narrow the group which formed his kin; and thus we see that as it became the most powerful family next to his, there came to be alternate election of the king or chief from these two families, the head of the one being always nominated Tanist to the other. [Sidenote: Relation of _Geilfiné_ chief to the _Ri Tuath_.] Such being probably the nature of these groups, it becomes necessary to examine their relation to the _Tuath_ and that of the _Flath Geilfiné_ or _Geilfiné_ chief to the _Ri Tuath_. We find in the Senchus Mor the following statement:—‘The head of each _Finé_, or the _Ceannfiné_, should be the man of the _Finé_ who is the most experienced, the most noble, the most wealthy, the wisest, the most learned, the most powerful to oppose, the most steadfast to sue for profits and for losses.’ The two qualities of ‘most noble’ in race and ‘most wealthy’ in cattle can only be found united in the _Flath_ or chief, and he is expected to possess the rest. We therefore find in the commentary ‘the head of each _Finé_’ defined to be ‘every one who is head chief of the _Geilfiné_.’ We are then told that ‘every person in a _Tuath_ accepts equal stock or subsidy from the _Flath Geilfiné_ or _Geilfiné_ chief, and the _Flath Geilfiné_ accepts stock or subsidy from the _Ri Tuath_, or else every person in the _Tuath_ accepts it from the _Ri Tuath_, though it is from him that the _Flath Geilfiné_ takes his _Flaithius_ or chiefship.’[210] We have here an alternative statement. In the one the members of the tribe take stock from the _Geilfiné_ chief, that is, are his dependants. In the other they take stock directly from the _Ri Tuath_. These statements represent different states of the tribe; the older state, when the members of the tribe were equal and independent of each other, and the later when they had become dependent upon the _Flath_ or chief; but both might exist at the same time, some taking stock from the chief and some from the king. There was this distinction between the chief and the king as regards _Saer_ stock tenure, that the connection between the _Flath_ and the _Ceile_ was based upon contract, and the connection which was freely entered into might be dissolved by either party; but we are told in the _Cain tsaorrthadh_ or law of _Saer_ stock tenure, ‘a man need never accept of _Daer_ stock from any other unless he likes it himself, and he need not accept even of _Saer_ stock from any but his own king, and he cannot refuse taking _Saer_ stock from his own king.’ And further, ‘he cannot separate from his own king at any time, either