Such was the internal economy of the stateship. Within itself it was a social and economic unit. But in the State it was a political unit, for it was fitted in as part of an elaborate national economy. If the stateship in question were part of a Mor-Thuath, then its ruler would only have the title of underking, _ur-ri_. In that case the stateship (_tuath_) would only come under the provincial king through the territory (_mor-thuath_). Otherwise it would come under the immediate jurisdiction of the province. And the provinces came under the jurisdiction of the Monarch. In the later stages, the territories displaced the provinces and came immediately under the Monarch. But always the result was the same. The purpose of the State was to spread out the administration in a number of diminishing authorities, resting finally on a free people in possession of the land on which the whole system was based; and to gather up that authority in tier after tier of exactly similar organisations to the headpiece of the monarchy. Each authority was exactly the same as the one beneath it, with its elected king, bishop, brehons, poets, historians and full court, and with its _Bruighin_ and _Baile Biatach_ in capital townships of increasing importance. The Monarch’s court was comprised exactly the same as the court of the king of a stateship, except that naturally his officers had necessarily to win higher degrees in the schools. It would seem that the schools themselves, of which the country was full and which won such fame throughout Europe that scholars from far afield came to them, were based upon the same organisation even as the Church organisation had been. How closely the system was interwoven appears from slight hints cast through the body of the laws. There is, for instance, a law tract dealing with the question of blood-guiltiness which throws an interesting light on this point. It was a simple matter when a man had an action against another of his own stateship: a brehon of their own stateship could deal with the suit. But what happened when a man of one stateship had an action against a man of a different stateship? By what arrangement was the case heard, and in what court was it held? From this tract it appears that an appeal was made up the line to a king, whether of territory, province or the monarch, who had equal jurisdiction over both stateships; and he either judged the case himself, if it called for a death penalty, or appointed a brehon from his own court to adjudicate in the matter. Clearly, then, the elaborate pattern of the State was not merely an abstract perfection, but one that was submitted to frequent service. And further, a hint such as this also shows that, whatever wars may have troubled the State, its ordinary administration was maintained, while the life it contained raised problems that required to be answered.