The Gaelic State in the past & future : $b or, "The crown of a nation" — John Shaqi
The Gaelic State in the past & future : $b or, "The crown of a nation"Figgis, Darrell
History
The Gaelic State in the past & future : $b or, "The crown of a nation"
Figgis, Darrell
Ireland -- Politics and government; Irish question
Each separate stateship was at once two things. It was a political unit
in the State and a social and economic unit in itself. The people were
the stateship, and the stateship was the people, for with them the
power finally lay. They ruled their own affairs within the limits of
their stateship, but were held within the single purpose of the State
by the unified code of laws outside of which it was not within their
power to transgress. However weak the monarch might be, these laws,
and the trained and hereditary brehons who administered them, held the
stateships in a uniformity of practice that was remarkable long after
the invader’s foot had brought disruption. But within that uniformity
each stateship worked out its own destiny according to its own local
needs.
Originally, it would seem, the land held within the limits of the
stateship was divided out among all its people. But strangers entered,
outlaws from other stateships and men upon the world, who became
servitors to the original freemen. These held no land, and therefore
held no political rights in the stateship, inasmuch as they did not
belong to its staple life. These were, broadly, the two main divisions
of the social life: _saor_ and _daor_, words only approximately
rendered by free and unfree. There were sub-divisions within each of
these. The unfree could, with time and by steady conduct, enter the
ranks of the landowners. A number of them could as tradesmen form a
guild, and as a corporate body claim political rights. But the staple
life of the stateship being the life on the land, in the main only
those who held land could have a voice in the guidance of its political
destiny. These were the overwhelming majority; for the unfree classes
being accidental to the life of the stateship they, for the most part,
either passed on, or, remaining, in the course of time joined its
political life in some capacity.
This was inevitable. For no man held the land he occupied in his own
right. All the land occupied by the stateship was vested in it, and
each occupier only held its usage by his right as a freeman of the
stateship. The stateship had the power to take any man’s holding from
him, from the king down, if he defied the will of the whole or was
outlawed. The Noble classes held somewhat more securely, though it
is not easy to define in what their greater security consisted; and
in later times, owing to the unsettlement introduced by an invader’s
presence, they claimed a prerogative right. But the plain meaning of
the laws is that no man held any land from which the stateship could
not dispossess him. That is quite clear and explicit. Therefore the
land belonged not to its individual users, but to the stateship, though
each freeman of the stateship could, as a freeman, claim, and was bound
to receive, land for his use.
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