But if territory was defined in Celtic nations, the right of
holding land differed in the case of the chieftain and the
clansman. The head of the tribe had a certain well-defined portion
assigned to him in virtue of his office, and as long only as he
held it; the clansmen held the remainder in common, no particular
spot being assigned to any one of them.

As far, therefore, as the holding of land was concerned, there
were neither rich nor poor among the Celts; the wealth of the
best of them consisted of cattle, house furniture, money, jewelry,
and other movable property. In the time of St. Columba, the
owner of five cows was thought to be a very poor man, although
he could send them to graze on any free land of his tribe. There
is no doubt that the almost insurmountable difficulty of the land
question at this time originated in the attachment of the people
to the old system, which had not yet perished in their affections;
and certainly many "agrarian outrages," as they are called, have
had their source in the traditions of a people once accustomed
to move and act freely in a free territory.

It is needless to call the attention of the reader to another
consequence of that state of things, namely, the persistence of
territorial possessions. As no individual among them could alienate
his portion, no individual or family could absorb the territory to
the exclusion of others; no great landed aristocracy consequently
could exist, and no part of the land could pass by purchase or in
any other way to a different tribe or to an alien race. The force
of arms sometimes produced temporary changes, nothing more. It is
the same principle which has preserved the small Indian tribes