disappear entirely. This refers however to defects, not to peculiar qualities. Cows, for example, may produce either milk or fat in abundance from similar food; and a species of cow, which secretes too much fat, so as to be deficient in the milk necessary to rear the calf, may be improved by selecting individuals which give more milk, and by crossing the breed with these; but we must be careful not to choose individuals which differ much in shape from the breed to be improved. A cross between a Herefordshire cow and an Alderney bull might possibly produce a good cow, but the breed of this cow would probably be of inferior quality, whether for fattening or for the dairy, and nothing but ill-formed cows, deficient in milk, and slow-feeding oxen, are likely to result from it. Every attempt to unite opposite qualities is generally attended with a bad result. If a breed has too great an aptitude to fatten, so as to endanger the fecundity of the mother or the health of the offspring, the only remedy is to diminish the food; and if, on the other hand, a difficulty is found in fattening cows which are of a peculiarly good breed for the dairy, such as the Alderney cows and other small breeds, the loss on the old cow sold half fat will have been amply repaid by the milk she has given; and the bull-calves which are not wanted to rear for bulls, if they are not profitable to fatten as oxen, must be fatted off young and sold for veal. But it is not a necessary consequence of an abundant produce of milk, that the cow, when dry, will not fatten readily; although a great propensity to fatten renders the breed less fit for the dairy. The Ayrshire, which are good milkers, fatten well when dry, and the oxen of that breed are as kind feeders as any.

Many breeders have an idea that coupling animals which are nearly allied in blood produces a weak race; others consider it as a prejudice, and among those who held the latter opinion was the famous breeder Bakewell. Without deciding this point, we should recommend avoiding too near a relationship, provided individuals equally perfect can be found of the same breed more distantly related. Every individual has some peculiar defect, and his descendants have a tendency to this defect. If two immediate descendants are coupled, this defect will probably be confirmed, whereas by uniting the descendants of different individuals the defect of either of the parents may never break out; but | sooner than retrograde by coupling an inferior animal with one in an improved state, we should not hesitate to risk the consequences supposed to arise from what is called breeding in and in, that is coupling animals nearly related in blood, especially if only on one side, such as the produce of the same male by different females, or of a female by different sires. The qualities which distinguish animals in which the muscles and bones are required to be much exercised, as dogs, horses, and working oxen, are very different from those of animals destined to accumulate mere tender flesh and fat for human food. In the former there must be spirit, activity, and quick digestion; in the latter, indolence and proneness to sleep are advantageous. In the first, the lungs must play with ease, and the muscles be strong, and not encumbered with fat. In the second, the lungs must be sound, as they are essential to all the secretions, and the digestive power must be good, but slow. The food must not be accelerated through the bowels by exercise, but the absorbent vessels of the intestines must draw all the nourishment from the digested food. The more the muscles are impeded with fat, the better the animal will repay the food given him. To choose an animal to breed from, whose produce shall get fat readily, we must attend to this part of the constitution, and care little about spirit and activity. The tendency to secrete bone, and those parts which are called offal by the butchers, as being of inferior value, is a defect. Good flesh and fat are the great objects.

The manner in which the more solid parts of the body are formed, and the greater consumption of food, in proportion to the increase of weight which takes place in young animals, while bones and horns are growing, prove that it is much more expensive to produce bone than flesh, and muscular fibre than fat. Hence it is evident that the greater profit is in fattening animals that have finished their growth; and also that there is a superiority in those breeds which have small bones and no horns. This is an important point to be attended to by a breeder; as is also the time when the bony secretion is completed. A breed of animals that will cease to grow, or have attained their full size of bone at an early age, will be much more profitable to the grazier than one of slower growth. It is in

this respect chiefly that certain breeds of sheep and cattle are so far superior to others. The principles which apply to cattle are equally applicable, mutatis mutandis, to sheep. In no case are strong bones or horns of much importance to the sheep in its domestic state. The principal objects are wool and flesh, which appear to be dependant on distinct and perhaps incompatible qualities. The attempt to unite the two is perhaps the reason why the Spanish breed, which has been improved when transported into Saxony, has degenerated in England; so that even its crosses are not in repute. It is a matter of mere calculation, whether sheep kept for their wool chiefly are more profitable than those which give an increase of meat at the expense of the quality of the wool. A breeder of sheep who attends only to the quality of the wool, will not have his attention taken off from the main object by any deficiency in the carcase, or the disposition of the animal to increase in flesh and fat. It is possible that mixed breeds may be more profitable than the pure. Fine wool may not repay the breeder and rearer of sheep so well as moderate wool and good meat. But the principle we contend for is, that of producing the most perfect animal of any one variety existing, by correcting individual defects gradually, and avoiding fanciful crosses, which may destroy in one generation all the advantages obtained in a great many. Hence it is a matter of great importance to consider well the qualities of the individuals with which you begin your improvement, and to know that these qualities have existed in their progenitors, and are not merely accidental. If crossing appear necessary, let it be done very gradually and cautiously. No experienced breeder would ever expect to improve the fleece of a sheep of the Leicester breed or the carcase of the Merino by a direct cross between these two breeds. The offspring would most probably lose all the good qualities for which each breed is noted, and produce a mongrel breed worth little in comparison. But a cross of Merinos with South Downs, or Leicester with Cotswold, might produce new and useful breeds, and these, carefully selected, as has been done, have produced mixed breeds, which by great attention may become very valuable.

When it is determined what breed of animals you wish to perpetuate and improve, the individuals which are to be the parents of the stock cannot be too carefully selected. The more nearly they are alike in form, colour and exterior appearance, the more likely they are to produce a distinct race. They should neither be above nor under the usual size. They should be of such an age as to have entirely ceased growing, and be arrived at perfect maturity; and, whatever may be their good qualities, they should not be selected, if they are the produce of very aged parents, at least on the female side.

In horses and horned cattle many breeders prefer a male rather less in size than the female, and pretend that the fœtus has more room to develope its members in what they term a roomy female.* There may be some truth in this, but equality of size, or rather the due proportion established in nature, seems most likely to produce a well-formed offspring. Any considerable deviation from this is generally attended with defect. Nothing is more common than for a country gentleman who has a useful favourite mare, not particularly well bred, when any accident has rendered her unfit for work, to have her covered by some very high-bred stallion, expecting to have a very superior foal. Sometimes this succeeds, but in general it ends in disappointment, especially if the mare be small. A much more certain way is to choose a half-bred stallion, nearly of the size of the mare, and having those good points which the mare already possesses. In this case there is every probability of rearing a well-proportioned and useful animal, instead of a cross made one, as the breeders call them, probably from the very circumstance of these crosses not succeeding in general. We advert to this as a fact which many of our readers may know from experience.

To give in a few words the rules which result from what we have very briefly stated

Choose the kind of animal which you wish to breed from, having distinguishing qualities; keep these constantly in view and reject all individuals in which they are not as perfect at least as in the parents. Select the most perfect forms and let the defects be corrected gradually. Have patience and perseverance and avoid all attempts at any sudden alteration by bold crosses. If possible, breed two or *See communications to the Board of Agriculture, by Mr. Cline, vol. iv.

With regard to the nature of the property enjoyed in these several estates, the tribe at large possessed what is called the allodial or original indefeasible property in all the lands, and could not be ejected out of them in consequence of any arrears of tribute, inasmuch as the superior lord lifted only a proportion of the increase of stock upon the pastures, and was bound to take the same away at certain seasons this rent was precisely a lay tithe, being one-tenth of the increase. As to the common tillage lands, every member of the tribe possessed a life interest in them, proportioned to his stock in cattle. In the private demesne lands individuals had a permanent inheritable interest. In his separate portion of the demesne lands of the tribe, the chief had a life interest, of which the reversion lay with the tanist, i.e., the second man, or chief elect, and in like manner the tanist, bard, &c. possessed life interests in their several portions.

The personal distinctions of the tribe, corresponding to the above territorial divisions, were, so far as can be gathered from the very confused authorities on this head, the In-finné, holders in common; and the Dathaig-finné, those individuals alluded to above who were entitled to separate inheritable possessions. The In-finné, or commonalty of this pastoral corporation, appear to have been of one rank: but the Dathaig-finné were divided into several classes, of which the three most intelligible were the Deirbh finné or class, as the commentators explain it, nearest the succession, who had the right to inherit the whole patrimony of their kin without deduction; the Gall-finné, who inherited threefourths of their patrimonial estates; and the Iar-finné, whose right of inheritance extended to only one-fourth of the property left by their relations. These privileged classes were, in every tribe, limited in number; but it does not exactly appear what was the qualification for admission, or the rule of exclusion, or whether the Deirbh-finné, for instance, became disqualified on the election of a tanist less nearly related to them than to others, although it is evident that a man might rise from the condition of a tenant of common tillage to that of a freeholder, or vice versa, descend from the higher class to the lower. As to the chief himself, he was usually elected before the death of his predecessor, and the rule seems to have been invariably, that the eldest of the candidates, if not incapacitated by age or infirmity, should have the preference, the brother being commonly chosen instead of the son, and the son rather than the nephew. His revenue arose, as has been said, from the tenths of the increase of cattle, and from the revenues of his demesne lands. In addition he had certain claims of entertainment for himself and household at stated times in the houses of his tenants, in the same manner as his superiors, at certain seasons, quartered themselves or their soldiers upon him. These claims were sometimes compromised by both for an equivalent in tribute; but, as a portion, more or less, by way of homage, was generally reserved, and as the reservation, according to its extent, would seem to have had a special denomination, we have an explanation of the perplexing multiplicity of exactions which has so frequently called down the censure of our early writers, who seem to consider coyne, living, bonaght, sohoran, cuddy, &c. &c., as so many separate taxes, leviable on one and the same holding-an extortion apparently monstrous, and really impracticable, since there are as many denominations of tribute, according to its reserved extent, as, if added together, would amount to perhaps three times the value of the whole land.

So far of the Finné, or original members of the kindred, who constituted the great majority of the tribe. But in every tribe there was another class, less numerous and generally less honourable, but in many respects peculiarly interesting and important, particularly as regards the origin of the feudal law. The subject of feudal tenures has occupied the attention of the most distinguished English lawyers and historians. The origin of the system has been in all cases referred more or less to the necessities of military conquest, and its genius has been invariably considered as quite distinct from that of any pastoral constitution. The remains of the brehon law however would go far to show that the feudal and pastoral systems, if not to some extent identical, have been in their origin closely and necessarily connected. The system laid down above is so far calculated for the government of a society composed of tribes, each tribe possessing the allodium of its own district, and the mass of its

practical development of such a system, if not actually contemplated in its very rudiments, arises the necessity of providing for those members of the community who, either by chance, or choice, or compulsion, have been separated from their particular kindreds, and have thus no proper Finné with whom to claim a share. Such individuals could not expect to participate in the rights of blood enjoyed by those tribes among whom they might be dispersed, neither could they be received by the commonalty of those tribes as tenants on their fluctuating possessions. To provide for them, it was necessary that a certain portion of the land should be set apart for the reception of strangers. To prevent the confusion of many landlords, the profits of these tenements were allotted to the chief who could thus affor to exact a lighter tribute from the Finné of his tribe. To induce the better sort of strangers to settle among them, the chief was empowered to grant some of these tenements in perpetuity, but the greater portion was usually let at will. As for those who had only their labour to offer in lieu of the chief's protection, they were received on his private demesne lands and became his serfs. Admission to the upper class depended on the stranger's ability to pay the entrance fine on one or more of the disposable tenements. These tenements consisted of a homestead with a certain scope of ground annexed. The homestead was denominated a Rath; to constitute a legitimate rath five things were requisite, viz., a dwelling-house, an ox-stall, a hog-sty, a sheep-pen, and a calf-house: these buildings were generally surrounded by a ditch and rampart, and formed if necessary a place of defence as well as of residence. There is one very prevalent error with regard to raths in Ireland; viz., that they were Danish erections, and designed solely for military occupation. The term 'Danish rath is altogether a misnomer. The original titles of raths, according to the classification of the brehon law, were drawn solely from the circumstance of their erection and occupation by the natives themselves; as for example, among many others, the Finné-rath, a homestead occupied by the original kindred; a Mer-rath, one rented by stranger tenants for the first time; an lar-ruth, one occupied by stranger serfs on the chief's demesne lands; a Saer-rath, one of which the stranger tenant enjoyed the perpetuity; a Forgu rath, a secondary tenement appurtenant to the Saer-rath, &c. &c. The entrance fine of such a tenement was denominated fal, and for the legitimate rath amounted to fifty head of cattle. But the most important term in this vocabulary is that applied to the stranger tenant himself. As distinguished from the finné, or original clansman, the stranger tenant was called Fuidhir, and his tenure Fuidh. Now these terms are pronounced respectively Feuer and Feu, the identical words still employed in Scottish law to indicate the freeholder and his freehold. Hence that they are the radical form of the other feudal derivatives, such as fief, fee, &c., seems more than probable; and when we come to consider more closely the relative situation of the Irish ree-feuer, it will appear that there is something in it very analogous indeed to the older forms of pure feudal tenure. First, the allodium of the soil vested in the representative of the tribe, so that the tenure of the ree-feuer holding of the chief might be considered as in capite, with a power in many cases of granting mesne tenures to others. Secondly, at the death of the chief a stated fine was paid to his successor. Thirdly, females could not inherit. Fourthly, raths were liable to escheat; and, Fifthly, the tenant was bound to serve the chief in war, and to diet certain numbers of his soldiery at all seasons. Of the more minute characteristics of the perfect feud as introduced by the Normans into England, such as escuage, wardship, ransom, &c. &c., there are so far few discoverable traces, but enough has been shown to give good ground for considering the Irish law of feuers, connected as it necessarily was with the pastoral constitution of their society, as the original form of feudal tenure among all the Celtic nations. Feuers were classified according to the circumstances of their migration; as those who had voluntarily left their former tribe to seek their fortunes; those whose tribe had been dispersed in war, and those who had fled or been expelled their tribe for debt, for robbery, for piracy, or murder. The first three classes only had the privilege of becoming ree-feuers; criminal fugitives were admitted only to a temporary protection, which they paid for by cattle or hand-service, on the private demesne lands of the chief, until he should compound with his prosecutors, after which they usually became his serfs or bondsmen. Bond-feuers were

attached to the soil; the lands to which they were assigned being denominated Betagh lands, and they themselves being frequently granted with the soil, as appears in many antient deeds, where they are specified under the name of Betaghs.

Thus then it would appear that the country was occupied by kindreds called Finné, holding for the most part in common, and by Feuers, who were either tenants by rent and service, or vassals of the chief. The tributes of chief to superior chief, up to the supreme king of the whole island, were regulated by established precedents. The collection of these rules for the kingdom of Munster is entitled 'The Book of Rights,' and is still extant.

So far of the common law; next as to the statute law of the Irish Whether these particular enactments were decreed by a general assembly, as asserted by some, or by local chiefs, as affirmed by others, is a question not at present capable of satisfactory consideration. The books containing them, of whatever age, profess to be but transcripts and collections, with frequent references to similar compilations of still older date; but the text appears to be original, as its dialect is so antiquated as to require the assistance of frequent glosses, themselves very difficult to be deciphered, and even when translated not by any means easily understood. The collections are interspersed with numerous moral sentences, occasionally also with superstitious dogmas: as an instance of the first, Heaven is like a chariot on wheels, the more you push against it the farther it flies from you;' and as an example of the second, There are seven witnesses against a wicked king; viz., division in his councils, strained interpretation of the laws in his court, dearth, barrenness of cattle or lack of milk, a blight of fruit, and a blight of seed sown in the ground: these are as lighted candles to expose the misgovernment of every king*:

The number seven would seem to have been held in much the same esteem as the mystic number three. There are, for instance, 'seven classes of persons whose anger is not to be resented; viz. bards, commanders, women, prisoners, drunken persons, druids, and kings in their own dominions. There are again three deaths not to be bemoaned; the death of a fat hog, the death of a thief, and the death of a proud prince: three things again which advance the subject; to be tender to a good wife, to serve a good prince, and to be obedient to a good governor. In this last example the same idea is repeated in order to complete the triad. What virtue can have been supposed to reside in these peculiar forms of expression it is hard to conceive. The only assignable reason for their use seems to be that they were thus more easily committed to memory. The system however does not appear to have been used to any such extent in Ireland as in Wales; triads, in fact, form the bulk of Howell Dhu's laws, and those of the most arbitrary and absurd description.

But to proceed with the more practical and intelligible portion of these collections, the laws defining specific crimes and their punishments. It is said that previous to the reign of Felimy Reachtair, or the Lawgiver, the lex talionis prevailed in Ireland, and that he altered that code for a system of retribution by mulct about A.D. 164. Parricide, rape, and murder, under certain circumstances, still remained punishable by death; but whether in consequence of this reform in the old law, or by immemorial custom, all other offences were thenceforth provided against in the brehon law by definite fines. The retribution thus exacted was denominated Eneclan or Eric, terms applicable also to rents, prices, and value in general. This system of erics has been justly censured by all English writers on the history of Ireland. But in this, as in most other instances, the censurers of the Irish have exaggerated the evil by considering it as peculiar to that people. So far however from being confined to the Irish, this mode of retribution by eric has been practised at one time or other by almost all the nations of Europe. The Greeks, the Romans, the old Germans, the Franks, the Saxons**, the Welsh, all punished our present capital offences by a fine. The only difference lies in the word to express it, poine (poena), mulcta, weregild, manbote, Sarhaad, and Eric being syno

Among the antient Britons, kings were likewise liable to be deposed on account of failure in the crops during their reigns.-Ammian. Marcell, lib. xviii. † Book of Ballymote, quoted by Hardiman.-Irish Minstrelsy, vol. ii, Homer, Iliad. ix. 632; xviii. 493, &c. Sext. Pomp. verbo Ovibus, and Noct. Attic, 1. xi. e. 1. Tacit. de Mor. Germ. 1. xii. and xxi. ¶ Leges Salic. tit. xliv. ** Leges Athelst, apud Blackstone, b. iv. tt Wotton, Leges Wallicæ,

་

nymous terms in their respective languages. In England at the time of the Conquest, every man had his value; in Wales, even to the time of its incorporation with England, not only had every man his own value in gross, but the particular value of all his members severally laid down by law; as six oxen and ten shillings for the two hands, a like sum for the two eyes, half that sum for one of either pair, so much for the ears, lips, nostrils, &c., and these again varied with the rank of the maimed individual*. It is not then to be considered either unexampled or monstrous to find an Irish chieftain requesting of the lord deputy to fix his sheriff's eric, that he might know what he should have to pay, in case of that officer coming by his death at the hands of any of his people. The amount of these erics, the different persons liable for their payment and entitled to their receipt, the proportions of these claims and liabilities, the adjustment of value and the living money by which the various proportions of the mulct were paid, these and the further punishment of the offender in each case required a very minute and complicated system of enactments. That the old Irish were acquainted with coined money is asserted by numerous authorities; that they used large quantities of the precious metals as a medium of value is unquestionable; but as none save chiefs and lords of territories were required to pay tribute in metal, the dealings of the mass of the people were calculated for the standard of living money as closely as the nature of the medium would permit. Cattle were accordingly classified; and no doubt it would raise a smile on the countenance of a modern merchant to be told of calves, yearlings, heifers, strippers, in-calf cows, &c. representing the fractional parts of the standard of currency, but such has been the original pecuniary substitute in every country; and when we have the learned Selden declaring that pounds and shillings were not abundant in England in 1004, but paid in truck and cattle,' we can consider the practice in a less intolerant spirit than those who, writing but a few centuries after the use of coined money, had become common among their own countrymen, have represented the barbarism of the Irish in this respect as a thing almost unheard of before. It has been seen that in proportion to the number of cattle possessed by each member of the tribe was his share of the common tillage lands. Thus cattle were not only the standard of value, but the qualification for, and a necessary concomitant of, property. The land was thus by a sort of legal fiction an appurtenance of the stock; so that to say of a person under this system that he possessed a hundred cows, implied not only that his herds amounted to so many head of cattle, but that in addition, and as a necessary appurtenance of his estate in them, he also possessed the grazing of a hundred cows, and the share proportioned to a hundred cows in the common tillage lands of his tribe. Every addition to the number of a man's cattle was therefore a virtual accession of land and produce, and vice versa; and thus a mulet of cattle fell as heavily on the granary as on the larder or dairy of the fined individual; for these proportionate partitions of the land took place at stated periods, and each man's harvest fluctuated with his herds as they bore a greater or a less ratio to the aggregate of all the cattle of the rest. The division of the ground into portions so uncertain precluded the use of permanent fences on those arable commons which were probably separated from the pasture by only one exterior circumvallation, while each man knew the portion that was to fall to his particular reaping-hook within. The adjustment of these portions must have been a matter of some difficulty; from an account of a partition of this kind given by Sir Henry Piers, who wrote a history of the county of Westmeath in the year 1682, § it would appear that the plan usually pursued was this. The land was divided into equal shares, in the proportion, each to the whole, of the herd of the least proprietor to the whole creaght or common stock of all their cattle. These shares were drawn for by lot, in order to give to all an equal chance of getting the worse or better land. He then, it is supposed, whose herds were thrice as numerous as those of the least proprietor, drew three such aliquot parts; he possessing ten times as many, ten such, and so on, the shares being taken here and there as they turned up, and every man cropping his own portion as he thought fit. The system is still remembered in some parts of the country, and a mode of expressing the extent of land among the Munster peasantry is still to say 'So much as