Irish Farming Laws

The Legal Existence of Irish Farmers 

Early Medieval Ireland existed primarily as a complex society of rural, clan-based agricultural communities spread widely across the landscape. Farming of cereal and vegetable crops was important, but livestock defined the prosperity of a community; cattle, in particular, formed the basis for Irish economic values and transactions. Understanding Irish society requires a thorough grasp of the dynamic interactions between livestock, the people and the land.

Within the social hierarchy of codified status in Ireland, farmers played an important role. They had well-defined legal rights and protocols, in accordance to their level of wealth, land ownership (or tenancy) and what type of livestock they owned. In Críth Gablach (1), a legal tract defining distinctions of status, different categories of farmer and landowner were described and valued, in cumals. A cumal was usually equal to the worth of three healthy milch cows (2), but measurements of land were also defined in cumals (the land required to support three dairy cows), as were the values of slaves (a trained female slave cost one cumal) and many other types of property.

The rank of a common farmer began with the lowest status of freeman, the ócaire (3), who owned at minimum enough land to support a herd of 21 dairy cows. On this property, the farmer grew cereal crops (plowing one cumal of land) and hay for winter (another cumal of land). He raised livestock on at least three cumals of land, typically including seven cows in milk, three cows not in milk (dry), ten sheep, five pigs, two horses, three chickens and a rooster (4). The remaining land included a house, a sheep-fold and perhaps barn for the animals, a milking parlor, and perhaps a woodlot or coppice for fuel and wattle. Since a poor farmer of this rank might not own a plowteam of oxen, or might have low quality pastureland, Irish laws mention that farmers could make cooperative contracts to co-own oxen for plowing (called comar), or to cooperatively pasture their herds together (5).

The next rank of farmer, the bóaire, owned at least enough land to support 42 dairy cows (6). The bóaire could, however, own between twenty-one and twenty-seven cumals of land (enough for 63 to 81 cows in milk), a rank of wealth designated as mruigfer (7) (a prosperous farmer/landowner). Any landowner wealthier than this fell into the 'lord' class.

Interestingly, commoners and lords alike seem to have put the same amount of land into crop production, regardless of their wealth or how much land they owned. The base unit of land put into cereal planting was just one cumal, the amount that one ploughman and his team could till; even a very wealthy farmer or a rich lord typically owned just a single team for plowing (8).  Legal uses of land also included a few other things besides plowing, hay production or pasture; a farmer might cut sod, hunt in the woods, harvest wood for fuel or building, mine for metal and quarry for stone. There were, likewise, legal regulations that prohibited owners from abusing the land. For example, incautious burning of vegetation was forbidden, with fines for damaging neighbors' property if the fire spread to another's land (9).  Animal carcasses were required to be burnt, especially if there was likelihood of rabies, and farmers were not allowed to dispose of animal remains near waterways, where they might pollute the water (10).

Sharecropping and landlord-tenant relationships existed in Ireland and followed established rules. A farm owner could rent out land to a tenant (called a bothaig) to both plow and pasture livestock, with water rights, in exchange for one third of the produce and the herd. If the farmer rented out merely the grazing rights to his pasture, the tenant owed him one seventh of his herd annually (11).  Landlords also had the right to evict squatters who trespassed or used their land without paying rent; in the presence of witnesses, they could drive away a trespasser's herds, or seize them, and knock down a squatter's fences, mills, kilns and other buildings. If the squatter refused to leave, after the owner's verbal objections to their presence, the landlord even had the right to physically assault or kill the trespasser. However, a landlord who did not notice a squatter or did nothing to object to their use of the land could, over time, lose their legal right to that land—and the squatter would become the rightful owner, through a process of adverse possession known as tellach.

This illustrates an important cultural point about the medieval Irish. They seem to have invariably emphasized the good of the whole society over the good of the individual, and they valued useful occupation or stewardship over hereditary rights or pride. Thus a person's worth was largely defined by their worth to society (their education, their productivity, their wealth and how they upheld the responsibilities that came with that wealth). A person could lose their status and their worth by misbehavior (including laziness, drunkenness, gambling, false testimony or by enabling another's vices). Having lost one's status, it was still possible to regain it through work and self-improvement. In this vein, a landlord who neglected his land and failed to notice that someone else was making use of it simply deserved to lose that land. A squatter who put the land to better use therefore had better claim to ownership than the neglectful former owner. It mattered more to the society that the land was well used and cared for, than that a person might keep ownership of land that they were not using.

Women as Landowners

Women in Ireland were allowed both to own and inherit property, including farmland. However, a woman's land did not pass through her marriage to her husband and offspring; it reverted, when she died, to her kin-group (except if she married a foreigner, in which case she might bequeath her land to her son, or daughter if she had no son, because foreigners could own no land) (12).  Although it was more common for sons to inherit land, or for women to marry someone from their paternal kin-group (to keep the land owned by a clan within the control of the clan) and hand control of her land to him, it was, nonetheless, possible for a woman to inherit or even to purchase land—sometimes in large quantities. A woman who owned farmland was called a banchoairt (13), and a woman who was the heir of a property was called a banchomarbae (14).

There are myriad laws in Ireland pertaining to women, their duties and rights, divorce and property ownership. Even if a woman brought no property to a marriage, she was owed a portion of all the farm products (dairy, corn, salted meat, a share of the young animals, a share of the woad, one sixth of all fleeces and flax, one third of all combed fiber and half of all woven cloth) that resulted during the time of her marriage to the farmer. If she got a divorce, those earnings went with her, as her portion of the value of that marriage. However, like all Irish laws, this only applied if she had proven herself a useful person who worked hard—if the farmer could prove that she had been lazy, then she was owed nothing (15).  The Irish expected that the women would work particular tasks, like fiber processing, spinning, weaving and sewing, or dough kneading and dairy processing, and tending the hearth, while men handled the firewood, dung mucking, plowing, harvesting and milling (although using a hand-quern in the home was a woman's task). Some jobs were unisex and could be done by either (or by husband and wife together), like milking, or brewing beer and mead. Children, both biologically related and foster-children, obeyed the mother in the home, and she assigned their tasks, including herding the livestock and combing wool.

In farming, it is interesting to note, women were firmly associated with sheep ownership, care and maintenance. So strong was this tie that a woman, when taking possession of land that she claimed, had to bring with her a flock of sheep when “entering her land” (a process known as tellach)—to legitimize her claim in a court of law (16). A man, to legitimize his claim upon land, had to enter his land in the company of his horses. This was a manner of adverse possession similar to modern fence and use laws pertaining to property ownership; a woman, to take over the land, had to have a witness and make formal entry upon the land, accompanied by two sheep ewes. If the current occupant of the land made no move to dispute her claim, after ten days she would again enter the land, this time bringing two witnesses and four ewes. After another ten days, if the occupant made no move to arbitrate or vacate, she would bring another three witnesses and this time, eight ewes, along with a kneading trough for dough and a flour sieve, to symbolize her rightful occupancy of the land. At that point she would be the legal owner. This relationship between sheep and women's rights may have been due to the association of women with fiber processing, wool spinning and fabric weaving. They also were likely in charge of milking the sheep ewes, a practice attested to in multiple sources (17), although goat milk was considered more valuable than that of sheep. There may have also been a tie between the fertility of sheep and women. Irish sheep were prolific breeders, and this may have been something of a talisman for women of child-bearing age, even during the Christian era. Finally, a woman's daughters were associated with the ewe's lambs, for tending to the lambs and kids was the job of female children on a farm (18).

Sources:

1) Binchy, Daniel A, ed. Críth Gablach. Mediaeval and Modern Irish Series XI, Dublin, 1941, reproduction 1979. Section 4.91.

2) Binchy, Daniel A, ed. Corpus iuris hibernici, i-vi. Dublin, 1978. Book iii, 778.25.

3) Binchy. Críth Gablach. Section 4.91.

4) Binchy. Corpus iuris hibernici. Book iii, 1058.12.

5) Kelly, Fergus. Early Irish Farming. Dundalgan Press Ltd, Dundalk, County Louth, Ireland, 1997. p 445.

6) Binchy. Críth Gablach. Section 6.153.

7) Binchy. Críth Gablach. Section 7.172.

8) Binchy. Corpus iuris hibernici. Book ii, 563.25.

9) Binchy. Corpus iuris hibernici. Book iii, 916.34.

10) Binchy. Corpus iuris hibernici. Book i, 107.4.

11) Binchy. Corpus iuris hibernici. Book i, 257.30-34.

12) Binchy. Corpus iuris hibernici. Book ii, 431.30-31.

13) Binchy. Corpus iuris hibernici. Book vi, 2117.36.

14) Binchy. Corpus iuris hibernici. Book i, 217.21.

15) Binchy. Corpus iuris hibernici. Book ii, 515.6-8.

16) Binchy. Corpus iuris hibernici. Book i, 205.22-213.37.

17) Kelly. Early Irish Farming. p.73.

18) Binchy. Corpus iuris hibernici. Book i, 82.5.