Ancient Laws and Government of the Irish
IRELAND, ages before she was Christianized, possessed a legal code of
great merit, generally called the Brehon Laws. These remained more or
less in force, from the earliest historic period down to the days of
James I, who, because of the wars and conquests of the armies of his
predecessor, Queen Elizabeth, was the first of the English monarchs that
succeeded in thoroughly breaking up the old system of Irish law and
government. The Brehon Laws were of Irish origin and contained many
provisions more in harmony with humanity and wisdom than some of the
boasted English enactments. In common with many other ancient countries
of Europe, Ireland did not impose the death penalty on a homicide, but,
instead, collected an eric, or blood fine, from him and his relatives,
for the benefit of the family of the man slain by his hand. The best and
briefest work on these interesting laws, which need more attention than
they can be given in a general history, was recently issued by an
English publishing house for the industrious author, Lawrence Ginnell,
lawyer, of the Middle Temple, London. In writing of the ancient form of
Irish monarchy, which, as we have already noted, was elective, Mr.
Ginnell says: “The Irish always had a man, not an assembly, at the head
of the state, and the system of electing a Tanist (heir-apparent) while
the holder of the office was living, in addition to its making for peace
on the demise of the Crown, made an interregnum of more rare occurrence
than in countries which had not provided a Tanist in advance.” The same
author divides the classes of Irish kings thus: The lowest was the
Righ-Inagh (Ree-eena), or king of one district, the people of which
formed an organic state. Sometimes two or three of these, nearly related
and having mutual interests, did not hesitate to combine for the public
good under one king. The next in rank was the Righ-Mor-Tuah
(Ree-More-Tooa), who ruled over a number of districts, and often had
sub-kings under him. The next class of monarch was the Righ-Cuicidh
(Ree-Cooga), a title which signified that he had five of the preceding
class within his jurisdiction. This was the rank of a provincial king.
And, highest of all, as his title implied, was the Ard-Righ (Ard-Ree),
meaning High, or Over, King, who had his seat of government for many
ages at the national palace and capital, established on the “royal hill
of Tara” in Meath. The king of each district owed allegiance and tribute
to the Righ-Mor-Tuah. The latter owed allegiance and tribute to the
Righ-Cuicidh; and he, in turn, owed allegiance and tribute to the
Ard-Righ.
Although the ancient Irish monarchy was, except where forceful
usurpation occasionally prevailed, elective, the candidate for the
Tanistry, or heir-apparency, was required to be of the “blood royal.”
Minors were seldom or never recognized as being eligible. At rare
intervals one might win popular recognition by displaying a precocious
wisdom, or prowess. The ablest and bravest male member of the reigning
family was almost invariably chosen Ard-Righ, and the provincial and
district rulers were chosen on the same principle. Meath was the High
King’s own province, and the lesser monarchs swayed over Ulster,
Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, subsidiary to, yet in a measure
independent of, the Ard-Righ, who held his court at Tara until A.D. 554,
when St. Ruadan, because of sacrilege committed by the reigning monarch,
Dermid, in dragging a prisoner from the saint’s own sanctuary and
killing him, pronounced a malediction on the royal hill and palaces.
Thenceforth Tara ceased to be the residence of the Ard-Righs of Ireland,
and total ruin speedily fell upon it. All that now remains of its
legendary splendor is comprised in the fast vanishing mounds on which
once stood the palaces, assembly halls, and other public buildings of
Ireland’s ancient monarchs. No man or woman of Irish race can gaze
unmoved on the venerable eminence, rising proudly still above the rich
plains of Meath, which has beheld so many fast succeeding vicissitudes
of a nation’s rise, agony, and fall.
“No more to chiefs and ladies bright
The harp of Tara swells;
The chord alone which breaks at night
Its tale of ruin tells:
Thus, Freedom now so seldom wakes,
The only throb she gives
Is when some heart indignant breaks
To show that still she lives.”
The most famous and powerful of the royal families of Ireland were the
O’Neills of Ulster, who enjoyed the High Kingship longest of all; the
O’Briens of Munster, the O’Conors of Connaught, the MacMurroughs of
Leinster, and the McLaughlins of Meath. Their descendants are simply
legion, for all the Irish clansmen were kindred to their kings and
chiefs, and assumed, as was their blood right, their surnames when these
came into fashion. When the Irish septs, about the end of the tenth
century, by the direction of King Brian the Great, chose their family
designations, the prefix “Mac” was taken as indicating the son, or some
immediate descendant of the monarch, prince, or chief of that particular
tribe, while that of “Ui” or “O,” as it is now universally written in
English, signified a grandson or some more remote kinsman of the
original founder of the name. Thus, the families bearing the prefix
“Mac” generally hold that they descend from the elder lines of the royal
family, or the leading chiefs, while those who bear the “O” descend from
the younger lines. And so it has come to be a national proverb, founded
on more than mere fancy, that every Irishman is the descendant of a
king. The Irish prefixes, however, are a genuine certificate of
nobility, if by that term is meant long descent. An old rhyme puts the
matter in homely but logical manner thus:
“By ‘Mac’ and ‘O’ you’ll surely know
True Irishmen, they say;
But if they lack both ‘O’ and ‘Mac’
No Irishmen are they.”
Many families of Irish origin in this and other countries have foolishly
dropped the Celtic prefixes from their names, and thus destroyed their
best title to respectability. They should remember that “Mac” and “O”
indicate a longer and nobler pedigree than either Capet, Plantagenet,
Tudor, Stuart, Guelph, or Wettin—all distinguished enough in their way,
but quite modern when compared with the Gaelic patronymics. The Scotch
Highlanders, who are of the junior branch of the Irish race, according
to the most reliable historians, use the “Mac” very generally, while the
“O” is rarely found among them. On this account, as well as others, some
of the Scottish savants have attempted to argue that Ireland was
originally peopled by immigrants from Scotland, but this argument is
fallacious on its face, because Ireland was known to the ancients as
“Scotia Major”—greater or older Scotland; while the latter country was
designated “Scotia Minor”—smaller or younger Scotland. The Irish and
Scotch were alike called “Scots” until long after the time of St.
Patrick, and the kindred nations were close friends and helpful allies,
from the earliest historical period down to the reign of Edward III of
England, and even later. It was in Ireland that Robert Bruce, his
brother Edward—afterward elected and crowned king of that country—and
their few faithful retainers sought and found friends and a refuge just
before their final great victory at Bannockburn, A.D. 1314. Sir Walter
Scott mentions this fact in his graphic “Tales of a Grandfather,” and
also in his stirring poem, “The Lord of the Isles.” Keating quotes Bede,
who lived about 700 hundred years after Christ, as saying in his
“History of the Saxons,” “Hibernia is the proper fatherland of the
Scoti” (Scots). So also Calgravius, another ancient historian, who, in
writing of St. Columba, says: “Hibernia (Ireland) was anciently called
Scotia, and from it sprang, and emigrated, the nation of the Scoti,
which inhabits the part of Albania (Scotland) that lies nearest to Great
Britain (meaning England), and that has been since called Scotia from
the fact.”
“Marianus Scotus, an Alban (_i.e._ Scotch) writer,” says Keating, “bears
similar testimony in writing on the subject of St. Kilian. Here are his
words: ‘Although the part of Britannia which borders upon Anglia
(England) and stretches toward the north, is at present distinctively
called Scotia (Scotland), nevertheless, the Venerable Bede (already
quoted) shows that Hibernia was formerly known by that name; for he
informs us that the nation of the Picti (Picts) arrived in Hibernia from
Scythia, and that they found there the nation of the Scoti.’
“Serapus, in certain remarks which he makes in writing about St.
Bonifacius, is in perfect accord with the above cited writers. He says
that ‘Hibernia, likewise, claimed Scotia as one of her names, but,
however, because a certain part of the Scotic nation emigrated from this
same Hibernia and settled in those parts of Britannia in which the Picti
were then dwelling, and was there called the nation of the Dal-Riada,
from the name of its leader, as the Venerable Bede relates, and because
this tribe afterward drove the Picti from their homes, and seized upon
the entire northern region for themselves, and gave it the ancient name
of their own race, so that the nation might remain undivided; in this
manner has the name of Scotia become ambiguous—one, the elder, and
proper, Scotia being in Hibernia, while the other, the more recent, lies
in the northern part of Britannia.’ From the words of the author I draw
these conclusions: (1) that the Irish were, in strict truth, the real
Scoti; (2) that the Dal-Riada was the first race, dwelling in Scotland,
to which the name of Scoti was applied; (3) that Ireland was the true,
ancient Scotia, and that Alba (Scotland) was the New Scotia, and also
that it was the Kinéscuit, or Tribe of Scot, that first called it
Scotia.”
There were numerous after invasions of Alba by the Milesian Irish, who
established new colonies—the most formidable of which was that founded
by the brothers Fergus, Andgus, and Lorne in the beginning of the sixth
century. For nearly a hundred years this colony paid tribute to Ireland,
but, in 574, the Scotch King Aedan, who was brother to the King of
Leinster, declined to pay further tribute. A conference of the monarchs
was held—all being close kindred of the Hy-Nial race—and St. Columba,
their immortal cousin, came from his monastery in Iona to take counsel
with them. The result was a wise and generous abrogation of the tribute
by the Irish nation, and Scotland became independent, but remained, for
long centuries, as before stated, the cordial friend and ally of her
sister country. The Scots then became paramount in Scotia Minor, and
brought under subjection all the tribes who were hostile to the royal
line, founded by Fergus, from whom descended the Stuarts and other
monarchical houses of Great Britain. This convention also lessened the
number and power of the Bards, who had become arrogant and exacting in
their demands upon the kings, princes, and chiefs, who feared their
sarcastic talent, and paid exorbitant levies, rather than endure their
abuse and ridicule.
After the abandonment of Tara as a royal residence, in the sixth
century, the High Kings held court at Tailltenn, now Telltown, and
Tlachtga, now the Hill of Ward, in Meath, and at Ushnagh (Usna) in
Westmeath. The Ulster monarchs had seats at Emain, near Armagh (Ar’-ma’)
Greenan-Ely, on the hill of Ailech, in Donegal; and at Dun-Kiltair—still
a striking ruin—near Downpatrick. The kings of Leinster had their
palaces at Naas in Kildare, Dunlavin in Wicklow, Kells in Meath, and
Dinnree, near Leighlin Bridge, in Catherlough (Carlow). The Munster
rulers held high carnival, for ages, at Cashel of the Kings and Caher,
in Tipperary; at Bruree and Treda-na-Rhee—still a most picturesque
mound, showing the ancient Celtic method of fortification, in Limerick;
and at Kinkora, situated on the right bank of the Shannon, in Clare. The
O’Conors, kings of Connaught, had royal residences at Rathcroaghan
(Crohan) and Ballintober—the latter founded by “Cathal Mor of the Wine
Red Hand,” in the thirteenth century—in the present county of Roscommon;
and at Athunree, or Athenry—Anglice, “the Ford of the Kings,” in Galway.
Ballintober, according to tradition, was the finest royal residence in
all Ireland, and the remains of Cathal Mor’s castle are still pointed
out in the vicinity of the town. It was to it Clarence Mangan alluded in
his “Vision of Connaught in the Thirteenth Century,” thus:
“Then saw I thrones and circling fires,
And a dome rose near me as by a spell,
Whence flowed the tone of silver lyres
And many voices in wreathèd swell.
And their thrilling chime
Fell on mine ears
Like the heavenly hymn of an angel band—
‘It is now the time
We are in the years
Of Cathal Mor of the Wine Red Hand.’”
One of the great institutions of ancient Ireland, vouched for by Dr.
Geoffrey Keating and many other learned historians, was the Fiann, or
National Guard, of the country, first commanded by Finn MacCumhail
(MacCool), “the Irish Cid” of pagan times. This force was popular and
lived by hunting, when not actively engaged in warfare, to preserve
internal government, or repel foreign aggression. When so engaged, they
were quartered upon and supported by the people of the localities in
which they rendered service. Their organization was simple, and bore
much resemblance to the regimental and company formations of the present
day. Their drill and discipline were excessively severe. Four
injunctions were laid upon every person who entered this military order.
The first was “to receive no portion with a wife, but to choose her for
good manners and virtue.” The second was “never to offer violence to any
woman.” The third enjoined on the member “never to give a refusal to any
mortal for anything of which one was possessed.” The fourth was “that no
single warrior of their body should ever flee before nine champions.”
Other stipulations were of a more drastic character. No member of the
Fiann could allow his blood, if shed, to be avenged by any other person
than himself, if he should survive to avenge; and his father, mother,
relatives, and tribe had to renounce all claim for compensation for his
death.
No member could be admitted until he became a Bard and had mastered the
Twelve Books of Poesy.
No man could be allowed into the Fiann until a pit or trench deep enough
to reach to his knees had been dug in the earth, and he had been placed
therein, armed with his shield, and holding in his hand a hazel staff of
the length of a warrior’s arm. Nine warriors, armed with nine javelins,
were then set opposite him, at the distance of nine ridges; these had to
cast their nine weapons at him all at once, and then, if he chanced to
receive a single wound, in spite of his shield and staff, he was not
admitted to the Order.
Another rule was that the candidate must run through a wood, at full
speed, with his hair plaited, and with only the grace of a single tree
between him and detailed pursuers. If they came up with him, or wounded
him, he was rejected.
He was also rejected “if his arms trembled in his hands”; or if, in
running through the wood, “a single braid of his hair had been loosened
out of its plait.”
He was not admitted if, in his flight, his foot had broken a single
withered branch. Neither could he pass muster “unless he could jump over
a branch of a tree as high as his forehead, and could stoop under one as
low as his knee, through the agility of his body.” He was rejected,
also, if he failed “to pluck a thorn out of his heel with his hand
without stopping in his course.” Each member, before being admitted to
the Order, was obliged to swear fidelity and homage to the Righ-Feinnedh
(Ree-Feena) or king of the Fenians, which is the English translation of
the title.
There were also other military bodies—not forgetting the more ancient
“Red Branch Knights,” whom Moore has immortalized in one of his finest
lyrics, but the Fenians and their redoubtable chief hold the foremost
place of fame in Irish national annals.
It would seem that a kind of loose federal compact existed, from time to
time, between the High King and the other monarchs, but, unfortunately,
there does not appear to have been a very strong or permanent bond of
union, and this fatal defect in the Irish Constitution of pre-Norman
times led to innumerable disputes about succession to the Ard-Righship
and endless civil wars, which eventually wrecked the national strength
and made the country the comparatively easy prey of adventurous and
ambitious foreigners. The monarchical system was, in itself, faulty.
Where a monarchy exists at all, the succession should be so regulated
that the lineal heir, according to primogeniture, whether a minor or
not, must succeed to the throne, except when the succession is, for some
good and sufficient reason, set aside by the legislative body of the
nation. This was done in England in the case of Henry IV, who, with the
consent of Parliament, usurped the crown of Richard II; and also in the
case of William and Mary, who were selected by the British Parliament of
their day to supplant James II, the father-in-law and uncle of the
former and father of the latter. The act of settlement and succession,
passed in 1701, ignored the male line of the Stuarts, chiefly because it
was Catholic, and placed the succession to the throne, failing issue of
William and Mary and Anne, another daughter of the deposed King James,
in a younger, Protestant branch of the female line of Stuart—the House
of Hanover-Brunswick—which now wears the British crown. But, in general,
as far as the question of monarchy is concerned, the direct system of
succession has proven most satisfactory, and has frequently prevented
confusion of title and consequent civil war. We can recall only one
highly important occasion when it provoked that evil—the sanguinary
thirty years’ feud between the kindred royal English, or, rather,
Norman-French, Houses of York and Lancaster. Even in that case the
quarrel arose from the original bad title of Henry IV, who was far from
being the lineal heir to the throne. Our own democratic system of
choosing a chief ruler is, no doubt, best of all. We elect from the body
of the people a President whose term of office is four years. In some
respects he has more executive power than most hereditary monarchs, but
if at the end of his official term he fails to suit a majority of the
delegates of his party to the National Convention, some other member of
it is nominated in his stead. The opposition party also nominates a
candidate, and very often succeeds in defeating the standard-bearer of
the party in power. Sometimes there are three or more Presidential
candidates in the field, as was the case in 1860, when Abraham Lincoln
was elected. Succession to the Presidency, therefore, is not confined to
any one family, or its branches, in a republic, and the office of
President of the United States may be competed for by any eligible male
citizen who can control his party nomination. The example of Washington,
who refused a third term, has become an unwritten law in America, and it
defeated General Grant’s aspiration to succeed Mr. Hayes in the
Republican National Convention of 1880. In France, under Napoleon, every
French soldier was supposed to carry a marshal’s baton in his knapsack.
In the United States, every native-born schoolboy carries the
Presidential portfolio in his satchel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------