Ireland under the Tudors, with a Succinct Account of the Earlier History. Vol. 1 (of 3)Bagwell, Richard
History
Ireland under the Tudors, with a Succinct Account of the Earlier History. Vol. 1 (of 3)
Bagwell, Richard
Ireland -- History -- 16th century
The four points were the certainty of estate in each share, the exclusion
of bastards, the admission of a widow to one moiety, and the admission of
females in default of issue male. For which reasons, says Sir John, the
Kentish custom was always held good and lawful by the law of England. He
admits, however, that the Irish custom had a counterpart in North Wales,
which had been totally abolished by Henry VIII., along with other usages
resembling those of Ireland. Edward I. had only ventured to exclude
bastards, and to give widows their dowry.[11]
[Sidenote: Sir John Davies did not exhaust the subject.]
Notwithstanding the above decision, it is probable that a description of
tanistry and gavelkind does not exhaust the subject. The theoretical
division among all the males of a sept is not at all likely to have been
carried out, except in very early times. Human nature was against it.
From the twelfth century the example of the Anglo-Normans, which cannot
have been altogether without weight, was against it. The interest of the
chief was everywhere against it, because it would deprive him of the
means of rewarding his friends, and because he was always tempted to
seize lands to his own use. The tendency to private property would be
always asserting itself, but the exact historical truth can never be
known. Before the close of the mediæval period, a great part of Ireland
had been reconquered by the tribes from Anglo-Norman hands. Is it
possible that the Irish land system can have been anywhere restored in
its integrity? On the whole, it is at least probable that English
statesmen in the sixteenth century made as many mistakes about tenures in
Ireland as their representatives in the eighteenth and part of the
nineteenth made about tenures in India. Good faith may be generally
granted in both cases, but the blunders made were no less disastrous. It
is at all events clear that primogeniture was no Celtic usage, that it is
no part of the law of nature, and that the Tudor lawyers treated it as an
end in itself, and almost as a necessary element in the eternal fitness
of things. In the twelfth century Irish practice may have come much
nearer to theory than in the sixteenth; at all events, Henry II.'s grants
to individuals were absolutely opposed to Celtic notions of justice.
[Sidenote: Composition for murder.]
[Sidenote: Celtic usages part of the common Aryan stock.]
[Sidenote: The conflict of laws is the key to Anglo-Irish history.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account