Irish Catholics. Whether they were wise in doing so is another question. As regards the non-representation of the Irish in the Anglo-Irish Parliament, it must be remembered that representation was at first looked on not as a privilege but as a burden, and the fact that Henry VIII had to bribe the Irish magnates, such as O'Neill, O'Donnell, and O'Brien, to consent to answer writs to attend Parliament, by gifts of houses and lands in Dublin, shows that it was not greatly appreciated by the Irish. Anyhow, there was certainly no general application on their part for representation as there was for admission to the benefit of the English laws. Unfortunately, the establishment of Parliament came at a critical period in the affairs of the colony, so that it is impossible to judge what might have happened had nothing occurred to interrupt its prosperous development.

Hitherto we have been accustomed to regard the period lying between Edward Bruce's invasion and Henry VIII's efforts to re-establish the authority of the Crown, i.e. between 1315 and 1541, as one of decay and decline. The phrase, of course, expresses the view of English and Anglo-Irish writers from the time of Baron Finglas onwards. For this phrase, Prof. Curtis would have us substitute the Irish Resurgence.' This means that the period presents to Irishmen an aspect different from what it does to Englishmen. We do not wish to cavil with the new phrase. To us it seems immaterial whether we call the period one of English decline or Irish resurgence. The one is the counterpart of the other. We only wonder what we are to understand by Irish resurgence. Does it mean a step backwards or forwards-flowers or weeds? Presumably what Prof. Curtis wishes us to understand is the recovery by the Irish of a great deal they had lost since the advent of Strongbow and his companions. Reading the latter part of his book we see the significance of his introductory chapter. In that chapter Prof. Curtis intends to show us what the history of Ireland might have been had not the development of national institutions been interrupted by the invasion.

'The kingdom of Ireland,' he tells us, was, in the year 1170, already nine centuries old. . . . This national unity

...

under native Gaelic Kings was then shattered by the Norman
invasion. . . . The Ireland of this time gives the impression
of a race mentally quick, adaptive, and eager; civilisation had
been working for a thousand years and seemed destined to
reach great heights. Unhappily, the conquest had the result
of throwing back the national genius and bringing into
prominence the pedantry and traditionalism which were
deeply rooted in the native character. Much barbarism
certainly mingled with their civilisation. . . . In the aimless
violence, sporadic wars and blundering activities of its kings,
Ireland suggested Merovingian France. All through mediæval
times the Gaelic leaders were rather battle-leaders than states-
men, and romanticists rather than realists. This more than
any innate backwardness delayed the progress of the race.
Unhappily Ireland was not permitted to achieve her own
salvation... the course of European politics determined
that the only English Pope should be the instrument for
placing Ireland in her long subjection to England. . . . To
turn to the question of political progress. Ireland was at
the stage when patriarchal institutions were passing into
feudalism. A landed aristocracy had been establishing itself
for centuries, and the monarchy was seeking to control the
aristocracy. . A fatal defect was the want of an acknow-
ledged capital. . . . The chief strength of the Monarch, as it
was in France of the time, was certainly in his own demesnes
and his own province. . . . Though the High King's administra-
tive powers were in embryo, they were capable of expansion.
His decisions had to receive the assent of an airecht, or council,
which we may compare to the Angevin curia regis, and the
general approbation of the prelates and the kings who had
elected him. . . . The High King became so by submission,
willing or unwilling, of the province-kings, by their "resorting
to his house," by hostage-taking, homage, and bestowal of
stipends in return. Of solemn consecration by the Church
I find no trace. . . . Kingship, and indeed all chiefly office,
was by the election of the local great, both lay and spiritual,
and this aristocracy was a check to all development of
personal autocracy, for the electors of a king could also
depose and call him to account. . . . The king, great or small,
received a personal demesne to support him in his office, out
of the "royal land," from which his nearer kin had to be
provided for; along with that he got the tributes and mili-
tary services of his country, and the right to quarter mer-
cenaries on the whole territory. . . . Sometimes the monarch
legislated alone or by the advice of his council, sometimes he
Vol. 244.-No. 483.

N

judged and legislated in the midst, and with the consent of great national assemblies. . . . Thus, though the Irish monarchy was tardy in its growth, there was a national will and a central command. These national assemblies were often incomplete, for Munster resented the supremacy of the North. Still a strong king, acting as final arbiter, could in time through such assemblies have enforced a real monarchy.'

We hope we have stated Prof. Curtis's position fairly. His view of Gaelic institutions and civilisation differs widely from ours. But taking the situation on the eve of the Invasion to be as he states it, we would ask what it amounts to? Apart from art and literature, on which the last word has not been spoken, it seems to us that, after nine hundred years, Ireland had made no political progress worth speaking of. The description Prof. Curtis gives of the state of affairs at the end of the period exhibits Ireland in practically the same condition as it was at the beginning. The reason for this stagnation, though it has apparently escaped Prof. Curtis's observation, is not far to seek. It lies simply in the fact that the relations between the High-King and those province-kings, who willingly or unwillingly acknowledged his supremacy, were entirely of a personal character and gave him no right whatever to meddle in their domestic affairs or to control the relations between them and their immediate subjects or clansmen. For example, A might force B, C, and D to accept stipends from him and 'resort into his house'; but A could not command the obedience of B, C, and D's followers as if they were his own. This is what we mean when we say that the Gaelic polity rested on a tribal basis, and we entirely agree with Mr Orpen that until this system was outgrown or destroyed no real progress was possible.

The doctrine has recently been challenged by Prof. MacNeill. The fact is, Prof. MacNeill clearly sees the weakness of Prof. Curtis's position as regards the racial unity of the Irish, and is bent on proving that language and not race is the true test of nationality. To speak of a tribal system based on blood relationship between chief and clansmen is, he declares, quite a mistake. We agree; but this is to miss the point of the argument. Tribe is an ambiguous word. In Irish history it may

mean tuath, i.e. all the people of a certain district, including Gael and non-Gael, or it may mean fine, comprehending merely the former. How the distinction between fine and tuath arose is a point of great importance. When the Gael took possession of Ireland they did so as a tribe, in which all the members were connected by ties of blood-relationship. But Ireland was not an empty country. On the contrary, it was fairly thickly populated. What the Gael did, wherever they succeeded in establishing their supremacy, was not to exterminate the natives, but to make them, in their own legal language, their 'hereditary bondsmen'-earthtillers in effect. Together with themselves these 'hereditary bondsmen of the tribe' constituted the tuath. But the Gael never admitted these bondsmen to an equality with themselves. Much the same thing, as we learn from Duncker,* happened in India.

'The ancient population of the new states on the Ganges,' he says, 'was not entirely extirpated, expelled, or enslaved. Life and freedom were allowed to those who submitted and conformed to the law of the conqueror; they might pass their lives as servants on the farms of the Aryas. But though the remnant of this population was spared, the whole body of the immigrants looked down on them with the pride of conquerors-of superiority in arms, blood, and character-and, in contrast to them, called themselves Vaiçyas, i.e. tribesmen, comrades, in other words, those who belong to the community or body of rulers.'

In Ireland we have the aire as opposed to the aiteach, which Thurneysen † translates Zinsbauer, from which the other lived. To return from this digression-what we mean by tribe, in the phrase 'tribal system,' is an autonomous political unit, and, as we have remarked, we agree with Mr Orpen that until the tribal system had been outgrown no permanent progress was possible. Unfortunately, Ireland was never thoroughly feudalised. We may, if we like, regard feudalism as a development of tribalism, though there are serious objections to this view, but the feudal system is so dependent for its

Hist. of Antiquity,' IV, pp. 116-17. + Helden und Königsage,' p. 77.

successful working on the proper co-ordination of all its parts, that a hitch at any point is likely to lead to confusion if not to anarchy. Particularly is this result likely to follow, if the head of the system is wanting, as it was in Ireland. So long, indeed, as the conquest was in progress the danger was not so apparent as when the Irish resurgence took place; but there was always, even from the first, a tendency on the part of the magnates to defy the authority of the absent sovereign.

Absenteeism has always been the curse of Ireland and not least the absence of the sovereign. In this connexion we have been much struck by the following lines from a poem entitled 'The Absentee Lordship,' by Egan O'Reilly, circa 1700:

'To crown our grief, behold a tale for tears,
How every one of Europe's many realms
Is happy, mated to its rightful king,
Save Erin, wedded to an absent lord.'

The prominent position given by Prof. Curtis to these lines seems to indicate that in the absentee lordship he detects the chief cause of Ireland's misfortunes. In this we entirely agree with him, and we are only astonished that English statesmen have never really appreciated this cardinal fact of Irish history. It is easy, in discussing the causes of the decay of the English colony, to fix on certain events as, e.g., Edward I's wars in Scotland, Bruce's invasion of Ireland, the murder of the Earl of Ulster, Edward III's wars in France, etc., as directly responsible for that result. In our opinion, however, none or all of these events would have exercised more than a passing effect on the colony if Ireland had been blessed with a resident sovereign of her own. We have only to recall the good effects of John's brief visit, the extraordinary success that attended Richard II's personal intervention, not to mention the enthusiastic reception accorded to George IV, and the hearty welcome extended to Queen Victoria at a critical period in the relations with England, to realise the significance of Sir John Davies's saying that 'Irishmen did ever desire to be governed by great persons.' In fact, given the geographical position and the determination of England to hold Ireland, the only natural solution of the Irish