The Irish code of law, entitled the _Senchus Mór_, preserved only in late MSS., is a work which contains a very ancient code embedded in glosses, commentaries, and accretions. Passages are quoted from it in Cormac’s glossary, a work of the tenth century, and these quotations appear to be the earliest testimonia. In the tenth century it was believed that the original code was drawn up in the reign of king Loigaire in the fifth century. Here is the note in Cormac’s glossary, in Dr. W. Stokes’s translation (_Trip._ p. 570). _Nós_ (customary law), the knowledge of nine [_nofis_], to wit three kings and three bishops and three sages, namely, a sage of poetry and a sage of literature and a sage of the language of the Féni. All these were composing the _Senchus Mór_. Thence it is said:— Loiguire, Corc, dour Daire, Patrick, Benén, just Cairnech, Ross, Dubthach, Fergus with goodness, Nine props, those of the _Senchus Mór_. The same account is found in the Introduction which was prefixed in late times to the Senchus, and professes to record the circumstances of its compilation. Was this tradition, which was current in the tenth century, genuine, or was it an invention made for the purpose of enhancing the prestige of Patrick? In deciding this question, there are two considerations which seem to me important. (1) If the code, which evidently held such a high place in public esteem in the tenth century, had been drawn up in the seventh or eighth centuries, it is inconceivable that an event of such interest and importance as its publication should not have been recorded in the _Annals_. In my opinion this argument applies also to the sixth century. But in any case, if it be admitted that the silence of the _Annals_ forbids a date later than A.D. 600 at the latest, all the probabilities are in favour of the correctness of the tradition. The entries in the _Annals_ for the fifth century are extremely meagre, so that the omission of a notice of the _Senchus Mór_ would not be surprising. It may be said, however, that as a matter of fact, the _Annals_ do notice the composition of the _Senchus Mór_. Under A.D. 438 we find: _Senchus mor do scribunn_, “the Senchus Mór was written.” But in the first place, this entry is in Irish; if it had been a contemporary record, it would have been preserved in Latin; it is clearly an addition, and perhaps a comparatively late addition. In the second place, the date is suspicious. The year A.D. 438 is the very year in which the Theodosian Code was issued; and therefore we can hardly doubt that the motive of the insertion of the Irish entry under this year was a desire to synchronise the issue of the native with that of the great Roman Code. These considerations force us to reject the entry in the _Annals_ as evidence of independent value.