209 
would, perhaps, have enabled him to make this production more 
interesting than it is at present. ‘The author submits, that, if the 
same facilities were allowed to the Irish scholar to consult the nu- 
merous ancient manuscripts in his native language, deposited in the 
College Library, that are allowed to the readers in the printed part 
of the Library, it is probable, that, notwithstanding the little en- 
couragement given to literary productions connected with Ireland, 
some instructive and interesting articles on the ancient state of our 
country might have long since been laid before the public. 
It has been urged as an argument against the customs of Tanistry 
and Gavelkind, that women were excluded from the inheritance of 
landed property. It is not, however, strictly true, that women were 
so excluded. They were, indeed, by the laws debarred from a par- 
ticipation in those lands that were subject to be gavelled ; but there 
are sufficient examples in those laws to shew, that women did possess 
landed property, and might dispose of chattel property, although they 
had not a power to alienate any of their lands from the tribe to which 
they belonged. But, supposing that Irish women did not enjoy 
landed property, the same must be said of the women of several 
other ancient nations. There is not, perhaps, a single instance to 
be found in the Old Testament where sisters shared with their bro- 
thers the landed inheritance of their father ; and it is notorious, 
that the Romans, Franks, and other ancient nations, excluded women 
from the possession of lands that must be defended by the sword, as 
well as they did from the sovereignty. 
It has been also asserted, that the law of Gavelkind was a bar to 
the improvement of the country, inasmuch as no man would im- 
prove land that he knew would not be enjoyed by his children. 
This also is a falsehood. ‘The uncultivated state of Ireland, at the 
commencement of the seventeenth century, arose from causes quite 
FF 2 
