5 22 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



was a commoner of somewhat better standing than the farmer tribesman. 

 ' The non-free people were of three classes, ... the Bothach 1 , the Sencleithe, 

 and the Fudir. 1 The persons belonging to the first two were herdsmen, 

 labourers, squatters on waste lands, horse-boys, hangers on, and jobbers of 

 various kinds— all poor and dependent." 2 . . . "A fudir was commonly a 

 stranger, a fugitive from some other territory, who had by some misdeed, 

 or for any other reason, broken with his tribe— who had become 'kin wrecked,' 

 as they expressed it in Wales — and fled from his own chief to another who 

 permitted him to settle on a portion of the unappropriated commons land." 3 



The fudirs were of two kinds, a higher and a lower, a saer or free fudir 

 and a daer or bond fudir. The former were those who were " free from 

 crime, and who, coming voluntarily into the district, were able to get 

 moderately favourable terms when taking land from the chief." 4 Some of 

 them, therefore, grew wealthy. But the latter — the daer fudirs — "were 

 escaped criminals, captives taken in battle or raids from other districts or 

 other countries, convicts respited from death, persons sentenced to fine and 

 unable to pay, purchased slaves, &c." 5 



It was through the fudirs that the nobles enhanced and maintained their 

 position as landowners, and curtailed the powers of the ordinary tribesmen. 

 " The settlement of fudirs was disliked by the community and discouraged by 

 the Brehon law : for it curtailed the commons land ; and while it tended to 

 lower the status of the tribe, it raised the power of the chief, who in cases of 

 dispute could bring all his fudirs into the field. Any social disturbance, 

 such as rebellion, civil war, &c, in which many were driven from their homes 

 and beggared, tended to increase the number of the fudirs." 6 



The bo-aires who rented non-tribal land were, like the farmers of tribal 

 land, the non-noble members of the tribe who, in one way or another, had 

 accumulated some wealth in cattle. They may also have held a share of 

 tribal land — whether they did so is not clear — but, if they did, they drew 

 their chief livelihood from pasturing cattle on privately owned land rented 

 from the nobles, as well as by lending out stock to the poorer farmers. 1 



But although we can now get some conception of the Brehon land system, 

 thanks chiefly to the patience and perseverance of O'Donovan and O'Curry, 

 it is not possible to descend to what might be called the finer agricultural 



1 These names are still used in the north-east of Scotland to describe men of indifferent stature 

 and character in the one case and efficiency in the other. 



2 Joyce, vol. i, p. 162. 3 Ibid., vol. i, p. 163. 4 Ibid., vol. i, p. 163. 

 5 Ibid., vol. i, p. 164. 6 Ibid., vol. i, p. 164. 



' The above statement as to the system of land-tenure is drawn chiefly from O'Donovan and 

 O'Curry's introduction and notes to the Brehon Laws, and from Maine, Seebohm, and Joyce, as 

 well as from Spenser and Davies. 



