of Eclinhutgli, Session 1882-83. 
105 
When the richer man contributed only a portion of the stock to a 
freeman of the tribe who already possessed some of his own, that 
poorer freeman had to return a third of the value of the stock 
annually for a specific period ; but when the freeman had no stock 
of his own, he had to give security for the return of the stock lent, 
and to pay a food tribute, the type and evidence of vassalage, twice a 
year. The former, the “ Saer Ceile,” were the antetypes and pro- 
genitors of the vassals of later times ; and the latter, the ‘‘ Daer Ceile ” 
or bond tenants, were the antetypes and ancestors of the serfs and 
servile races, from whom the charity of the church and the chivalry it 
begot in long years after, and with many a painful effort, struck the 
shackles of slavery. Dr Skene says : — With the Saer Ceile the 
basis was a mutual contract for a fixed period, usually of seven years, 
by which the chief gave a portion of stock proportionate to the food- 
rent he was to receive in return, and was entitled along with this to 
the homage of the tenant during the subsistence of the contract, and 
to a certain amount of service in the erection of a dun or fort, the 
reaping of his harvest, and the sluaged or hosting ; but the contract 
would be terminated and the parties to it return to their original 
relation to each other, either by the tenant returning the stock he 
had received or the chief reclaiming it. A more permanent 
connection was formed between him and the daor ceile or bond 
tenant. Here the ceile placed himself formally under the protection 
of the chief as his permanent follower by receiving a certain 
number of seds or cows, by way of subsidy or gift from the superior, 
and paying him a Certain tribute as the price of his protection. As 
soon as this relation was constituted he received an additional 
amount of stock in proportion to the food-rent he had to return, 
in the same manner as in the case of the free ceile. The real 
distinction probably was, that in the one case the ceile was in a 
more independent position, and possessed stock of his own as well 
as a share of the tribe land, besides what he received from the 
chief. In the other he was dependent upon what he received from 
the chief for the whole of his stock. When the chief reclaimed his 
stock from the free ceile, the latter had the option of becoming a bond 
ceile if he preferred doing so to returning his stock, and the chief was 
then bound to add the returnable seds to the stock he had originally 
given, which constituted the relation between him and the ceile as 
