Chapter IV: Agricultural Tribes (2)

Gardiner gives an elaborate account of the regulation of landed property in Rotuma: “No private property in land formerly existed, it was all vested in the pure for the time being of the hoag [1305]; the district generally had rights over it. It usually consisted of four kinds: bush, swamp, coast, and proprietary water in the boat channel; common to the hoag, too, were wells and graveyards. Every member of the hoag knew its boundaries, which consisted of lines between certain trees or prominent rocks, posts, and even stone walls. In the bush land every hoag possessed property; it lay on the slopes of hills and in valleys between at some slight distance from the coast, from which it was separated by a stone wall, running round the whole island. On it taro, yams, bananas, plantains, and a few cocoanut trees were grown for food, while the paths into it and through it were planted with the Tahitian chestnut, the fava tree, and the sagopalm. The Tahitian chestnut and fava trees were favourite boundary marks owing to their size and longevity. Swamp land is only possessed by Noatau, Oinafa, Matusa, and Itomotu. It is low-lying land, on extensive beach sand flats, which exist in these districts. The tide always keeps it wet, percolating through the sand, and in it is grown the papoi, or broka, against famine. The possession of a good-sized strip always caused and gave to the hoag a position of importance; its boundaries were stones at the sides. Coast land lay outside the surrounding wall, to which the hoag had a strip from and including the foreshore. On it as near as possible to the coast the house or houses of the hoag were placed, while the rest of the land was planted with cocoanuts for drinking purposes. Hifo trees are stated to have been planted formerly to show the boundaries, but they more often now consist of stones or cocoanut trees, the ownership of which is a constant source of dispute. Districts and even villages were sharply marked off by walls down to the beach. All had the right of turning out their pigs on this land, and each hoag had to keep in proper repair the parts of the wall adjacent to it. Each had, however, usually an enclosure on its own land for its own pigs, when young. The proprietary water ran from the foreshore to the reef, a continuation of the strip on shore. At Noatau and Matusa, where it is very broad, it was to some extent cross-divided. It consists of a sand flat covered by 10–12 feet of water at high-tide. On it fish of all sorts are caught by traps and various devices, and shell-fish are gathered. As these form no inconsiderable portion of the daily food, indeed the principal animal food, the value of this property was always very considerable. The reef—i.e. the part on the outside exposed at the low tide—was the common property of all. It was explained to me that fish, crabs, etc., cannot be cultivated there, owing to the heavy breaking seas, but are sent up by the atua, or spirits.” “Any land, not being planted, is willingly lent to another hoag on condition of two baskets of first-fruits of each patch being brought to the pure, but cocoanut trees on the land cannot be touched by the tenant, nor is he entitled to their usufruct. If a hoag owns land in one district, but lives in another, first-fruits are always paid to the chief of the district, in which its lands lie. Any encroachment on the land was very vigorously resented, it was usually referred to the district chief to settle, and his decision loyally adhered to.” “If he [a man] had planted more cocoanuts than required by the hoag, he has the entire usufruct of these trees during his lifetime, quite independently of the apportionment of the land below them for planting.” We see that the idea of landownership is most fully developed here. During the 19th century the population has much diminished, and so “most of the hoag have far more land than they can cultivate.” But formerly it was otherwise. “Examining the remains of planting, it appears as if the whole island, wherever practicable, was at one time tilled. The land, where there is a good and deep soil, is, and was, no doubt tilled regularly from year to year, while the rocky country was planted more or less in rotation with yams and kava. Even on the steepest slopes, there are signs of clearing, the summit alone being left crowned by the hifo. The bottoms of the craters of many hills used to be planted too; in the crater of Sol Satarua, the lulu as it is termed, there are still bananas growing, but planted so long ago that the fact that it had a lulu at all was almost forgotten” [1306]. According to Hale, food was not always abundant on this island; therefore the natives liked to engage themselves as sailors on whaling-ships, until they had earned enough to buy a piece of land [1307]. In Hale’s time land was evidently not so abundant as it is now that the population is so rapidly declining.

In Tahiti “every portion of land had its respective owner; and even the distinct trees on the land had sometimes different proprietors, and a tree, and the land on which it grew, different owners.” What our informant further tells us of the present state of things as compared with that of earlier times, shows a remarkable likeness to Gardiner’s statement about Rotuma. Ellis states that “an extent of soil capable of cultivation, and other resources, are adequate to the maintenance of a population tenfold increased above its present numbers.” But a great depopulation has taken place in the course of years. “In the bottom of every valley, even to the recesses in the mountains, on the sides of the inferior hills, and on the brows of almost every promontory, in each of the islands, monuments of former generations are still met with in great abundance. Stone pavements of their dwellings and court-yards, foundations of houses, and remains of family temples, are numerous. Occasionally they are found in exposed situations, but generally amidst thickets of brushwood or groves of trees, some of which are of the largest growth. All these relics are of the same kind as those observed among the natives at the time of their discovery, evidently proving that they belong to the same race, though to a more populous era of their history. The stone tools occasionally found near these vestiges of antiquity demonstrate the same lamentable fact.” According to Moerenhout “landed properties constituted the principal, or rather the only wealth of these people; therefore the power of the chiefs always depended on the quantity and quality of their lands; moreover, the more people they could support, the more sure they were of having subjects.” This writer does not, however, enter into many details [1308].

In Hawaii four social ranks existed. The members of the third rank, according to Ellis, “are generally called haku aina, proprietors of the land.” “In the fourth rank may be included the small farmers, who rent from ten to twenty or thirty acres of land; the mechanics, ... indeed all the labouring classes, those who attach themselves to some chief or farmer, and labour on his land for their food and clothing, as well as those who cultivate small portions of land for their own advantage.” “Sometimes the poor people take a piece of land, on condition of cultivating a given portion for the chief, and the remainder for themselves, making a fresh agreement after every crop.” Hale states that formerly there were no landed proprietors; all the land was “the property of the king, and leased by him to inferior chiefs (hatu aina, landlords), who underlet it to the people; as the king, however, though absolute in theory, was aware that his power depended very much on the co-operation of the high chiefs, they became, to a certain degree, partakers in his authority.” Remy tells us that the land belonged exclusively to the great chiefs, who leased it and received considerable rents. Chamisso and Marcuse equally state that the land belonged to the chiefs [1309].

In Rarotonga, according to Gerland, a man’s power depends on the quantity of land he owns. Meinicke states that there are four social classes. The third class is composed of the landed proprietors; the lowest class are those who own no land and live as tenants on the estates of the nobles [1310].

On the Marquesas Islands, according to Gerland, three ranks formerly existed: chiefs, landholders, and the common people. The landholders were the most powerful class; the common people were obliged to pay them a tribute. Yet those who owned most land were not always most respected, and even of the common people some owned land. Meinicke, however, states that the whole of the land is the property of the nobles. Hale, after speaking of the nobles, adds that the rest of the people were the landholders and their relatives and tenants [1311].

In Mangarewa (belonging to the Paumotu group) the nobles were the proprietors of the soil; they often let out their lands to the third class, the common people [1312].

Meinicke tells us that in the Manahiki group the cocoanut trees and the lagoons (for fishing purposes) were private property [1313].

In an article, quoted by Schurtz, it is stated that in the Tokelau group the land belongs exclusively to the nobles. Lister, speaking of Fakaofu or Bowditch Island (in the Tokelau group), says: “Two islets belonged ... to the king. Two others were common property, and the rest were divided up as the property of individuals” [1314]. So it seems that in this part of the group there was land which had not yet been appropriated.

In the Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman groups all the land belongs to the chiefs and the nobles, the common people having no landed property [1315].

Tregear has the following notes on landed property in New Zealand: “Land was held primarily by tribal right; but within this tribal right each free warrior of the tribe had particular rights over some portion. He could not part with the land because it was not his to give or sell, but he had better rights to certain portions than others of his tribe. He would claim by having the bones of his father or grandfather there, or that they once rested there; or by the fact of his navel-string having been cut there; or by his blood having been shed on it; or by having been cursed there; or by having helped in the war party which took the land; or by his wife being owner by descent; or by having been invited by the owners to live there.” Thomson states that “all free persons, male and female, constituting the nation were proprietors of the soil.” The chiefs were the greatest landholders. “Conquest and occupation gave titles to land. The right of fishing in rivers and sea belonged to the adjoining landed proprietor. Amongst the families of each tribe there are also laws regarding landed property. Thus the cultivation of a portion of forest land renders it the property of those who cleared it, and this right descended from generation to generation.... It was illegal for one family to plant in another’s clearing without permission”. “The independence and social happiness of the people were chiefly caused by cultivating their own lands.” According to Taylor, each tribe had its own district; “each member can cultivate any portion of it he thinks fit, if unoccupied, or if it has not been previously cultivated by another.” Polack says: “Possession is obtained by planting a portion (however small) of the soil, and reaping the same” [1316].

On Easter Island, according to Geiseler, every piece of land has its own name and its owner. The natives attach much value to landed property [1317].

We see that on most Polynesian islands all land has, or had been appropriated. Regarding Rotuma, Tahiti and Easter Island this is explicitly stated; and the same must be the case in Tonga, Hawaii, Rarotonga, the Marquesas Islands, Mangarewa, part of the Tokelau group, and the Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman groups, where classes destitute of land are found. In Manahiki property in land was strongly developed; but whether there was still free land is not clear. In Samoa there was still unappropriated bush land, though this was already “sometimes claimed by those who own the land on its borders.” In New Zealand clearing was still a modus acquirendi, which proves that all land had not yet been appropriated. Equally on Savage Island titles can be acquired by cultivation.

§ 6. Land tenure in Micronesia.

Kubary tells us that the population of Ebon, and of the whole Rallik group (in the Marshall Islands), consists of four ranks. “The common people are called armidj kajur and form the greater part of the subjects. They have no property, except the land allotted to them by the chief, who can take it from them at his pleasure. Every week they have, each of them, to provide the chief with prepared food, the quantity and quality of which are determined. The next class are the leotakatak, who hold their property by hereditary right and not from the chief. The chief cannot take the property of these men unless he kills them first.” “The punishments inflicted by the chiefs in former times consisted most often in capital punishment, and more rarely, in less serious cases, in confiscation of land and house” [1318].

Several other writers affirm that in the Marshall group the upper classes are the sole proprietors of the soil and the common people are destitute of land [1319].

Regarding the isle of Nauru we are told that not only every inch of land and every palm, but even the reefs and the sea washing them, are held as property [1320].

On the Pelau Islands the right of disposing of the land of the tribe vests in the obokúl (chief of a family-group); but he cannot alienate any land without the consent of his nephews. However, a regular agriculture does not exist, and most of the land remains untilled; therefore the opposition of the nephews generally bears a formal character; they only aim at extorting a present from the obokúl. The obokúl divides the land among the members of the tribe for cultivation. He may also cede pieces of land to aliens for use without payment; such persons then enter into the position of kaukáth, i.e. they are considered as related to the tribe without possessing the same rights, they occasionally provide the obokúl with food, and help him in his work. In another place our informant states that there is not often reason for disputes about land, as the population is scarce and large tracts of land are uncultivated [1321].

On the Mortlock Islands the chief of each tribe has an unlimited right to dispose of the land belonging to the tribe. He divides it among the heads of families on condition of their paying a tribute in kind. The latter assign to each member of their groups a piece of land for cultivation. Most land is divided up between the several keys (family-groups); the land which is not yet occupied is the property of the principal key and thus more directly than the rest at the disposal of the chief [1322].

On the isle of Kusaie twelve principal chiefs own all the land; but the chiefs of the second rank administer and cultivate it for them. The common people are obliged to pay a tribute to the chiefs and serve them. The highest mountains are planted up to their summits with bananas, taro, sugarcane, etc [1323].

On the Eastern Caroline Islands the land belongs exclusively to the two upper classes; the third class are attached to the soil on which they live [1324].

Hale states that in Ponape or Ascension Island there are three classes. All the land belongs to the two upper classes. The estates are never alienated and pass only by succession [1325].

Gerland tells us that on the Marianne Islands the nobles were hereditary owners of the whole of the land [1326].

As to the Kingsmill Islands, the particulars given by Wilkes and Parkinson, as quoted in the second chapter of Part I [1327] sufficiently prove that all land had been appropriated. According to Wilkes “any one who owns land can always call upon others to provide him with a house, canoe, and the necessaries of life; but one who has none is considered as a slave, and can hold no property whatever.” Hale tells us that “the katoka are persons not originally of noble birth, who either by the favour of their chief or by good fortune in war, have acquired land and with it freedom” [1328]. If in Wilkes’ statement we read “proletarian” instead of “slave,” and take Hale’s “freedom” in an economic, not in a legal sense, we find that here too the lowest class were destitute of landed property.

The conclusion is that on most of the islands of Micronesia all land has been appropriated, most often by the upper classes to the exclusion of the lower. In Pelau, though a vast amount of land is actually out of tillage, the regulation of landed property related by Kubary proves that all land is held as property. Here, as well as in Rotuma and Tahiti, we have to deal with the effects of the depopulation that has taken place in Oceania. In Mortlock there seems to be free land; but Kubary’s account is not very clear.

§ 7. Land tenure in Melanesia.

Codrington, in his article “On social regulations in Melanesia,” remarks that his observations “are limited to the Northern New Hebrides, the Banks Islands, the Santa Cruz Group, and the South-eastern Solomon Islands” [1329]. Of land tenure he says: “Land is everywhere divided into (1) the Town, (2) the Gardens, (3) the Bush. Of these the two first are held as property, the third is unappropriated.... Everywhere, or almost everywhere, the abundance of land makes it of little value. If an individual reclaims for himself a piece of bush land, it becomes his own” [1330].

Somerville, speaking of New Georgia (one of the central Solomon Islands, and therefore not included in Codrington’s description) remarks: “Property seems to be well recognised: every one of the myriad islets of the great eastern lagoon has its understood owner, no matter if cocoanuts be growing there or not. Groves of cocoanut trees are well protected by hopes, as before described, as are also taro patches. Hunting rights over opossums on a man’s property are also protected by hopes” [1331]. Ribbe, however, states that in the New Georgia group, uncultivated land, i.e. bush and forest, has no owner, except the parts planted with sago trees and fruit trees. Every one may clear and cultivate this land and so acquire a right of property [1332].

On the Shortland Islands, near Bougainville (N. W. Solomon Islands), landed property in the European sense does not exist. Everybody has the right to take a part of the wood into cultivation. By doing so, he acquires a right of property, but only for so long as he has the land in use [1333].

Woodford describes the regulation of landed property in the Solomon Islands in general in the following terms: “As to the system of land tenure among them, I believe that to land, per se, they attach but little value. Any individual of the tribe appears to be able to select at will a piece of land from the forest, which he clears, fences in, and upon it rears his crop of yams or bananas. After the crops are taken off, the land is allowed to relapse again to forest. When, however, a native plants cocoanuts his property appears to be in the trees themselves, apart altogether from any idea of ownership in the land upon which they are planted. I do not think that any objection would be raised to another native utilizing the ground upon which the cocoanuts were planted for other crops so long as the trees themselves were in no way damaged or interfered with. Property in cocoanuts appears to pass, upon a man’s death, to his heirs” [1334].

Of land tenure on the isle of Aneityum, in the New Hebrides, Inglis says: “There is neither a town nor a village in the whole Island. The system of cottage farming is in a state of full development there. There is no large proprietor, no powerful or wealthy chief; every man sits proprietor of his own cottage, his own garden, and his own cultivated patches—you could not call them fields. The waste lands and the forests, to the summits of the mountains, belong to the tribe. They are a kind of crown lands, but what each man cultivates belongs to himself” [1335].

In New Caledonia, according to Brainne, a noble’s authority depends on the range of cultivated grounds he owns, and one who possesses large tracts of cultivated land and large plantations of cocoanut trees is called a great chief. Glaumont tells us that “property is acquired by purchase or exchange. It may also be acquired by labour. Thus uncultivated grounds belong to the tribe, are so to speak common property; but if a Kanaka clears and cultivates a portion of this bush land it passes into his property. Property is held sacred (viz. in time of peace); the chief himself, however powerful, would not dare to take away the field of taros or ignames from the least of his subjects.” Lambert tells us that individual property in land is highly developed. The forest land, however, has no owner; every one may take a portion of it into cultivation and by doing so acquire a right of property. Meinicke says: “Each tribe possesses a separate territory in which the land fit for cultivation is the individual property of the chiefs and nobles, whereas the rest is at the disposal of all.” According to Rochas there are two ranks: nobles and common people; but the latter enjoy a rather independent position and always own some land. The rights of property in land are highly respected, even by the chiefs [1336].

Williams, describing Fiji, speaks of a feudal government; but he adds that the ancient divisions of landed property are much respected. Seemann states that the “real power of the state resides in the landholders or gentry”; and Hale tells us that the members of the lowest class “work for the chiefs and landholders and are supported by them.” The fullest account of land tenure in Fiji is given by Fison. The lands are of three kinds. “1. The Yavu or Town-lot; 2. The Qele, or Arable Land; and 3. the Veikau, or Forest.” “The town-lots and the arable lands are divided among the taukei (landowners), while the forest lands are held in common by them. Arable land also, which is not in actual use, is in some places common to a certain extent.” “The land is vested in—or, at any rate, is held by—certain joint tribal owners who have a common descent. These are called the Taukei ni vanua or owners of the land.... Not all the people are landowners.” Fison then speaks of some classes destitute of land, of whom it is not quite clear whether they are tenants or serfs. But the following statement of his clearly shows that all land has been appropriated: “In addition to the koro [villages] already mentioned, there are others inhabited by tribes who have either migrated from their own lands owing to disagreement with their kinsfolk, or have been driven thence by war. These emigrants beg land from a taukei tribe, and settle down upon it. They are not landowners where they are now living, but it does not follow that they are kaisi [base-born men, who are very much despised]. If they were taukei in their own land they cannot be placed on the level of the people without a father.” They pay “rent of produce and service.... Tribes such as these are tenants at will, and the land may be taken from them whenever it may be required. How long soever their occupation may continue, it does not establish a title. The descendants of the taukei can always resume the lands, upon giving formal notice, and presenting some property or other, which is called “the falling back of the soil” [1337]. These emigrants are neither slaves nor serfs, but destitute of land; if there were free land fit for cultivation, they would appropriate it instead of becoming tenants at will.”

On the Gazelle Peninsula of Neu Pommern, according to Pfeil, uncultivated land as such is not claimed by any one as his property. When a native wants land, he takes some piece which is not in use, without having to ask leave of anybody. Hahl also states that in the Northern part of the Gazelle Peninsula grass or forest land as a rule is at the disposal of whoever wishes to cultivate it. Equally among the Baining of the Gazelle Peninsula, as Parkinson tells us, the land is regarded as private property as long as it is being cultivated [1338].

In the Nissan Islands poverty is unknown, as there is an abundance of free land. Private property in land is acquired by taking it into cultivation. Land is sold and leased [1339].

Haddon, in his article on the Western Tribes of Torres Straits, remarks: “I have no precise information as to land laws, but I believe that the whole of the land is divided up into properties, certainly the arable land is, the chief sharing like anyone else. There is no one person or class of landowners who possess land to the total exclusion of anyone else. Title to land is derived from inheritance, gift or purchase. I never heard of any means of conveyance” [1340].

Hunt, describing the Murray Islands, says: “The chiefs held only their own hereditary lands, but the first fruits of all cultivated lands were presented to them as their share.... Any dispute about land would be settled by the old men who would meet and discuss the point in dispute and then pronounce their decision. Land was never sold, but could be leased, when, if used for planting, a share in the first fruits would be paid to the owner” [1341].

From the foregoing it appears that in many parts of Melanesia clearing is a modus acquirendi, viz. in the Solomon Islands, Northern New Hebrides, Banks Islands, Santa Cruz Group, New Caledonia, Gazelle Peninsula of Neu Pommern and Nissan Islands. Yet the rights of landowners are recognized everywhere in these islands. Here, as Ricardo would say, land of the second degree of fertility has already been taken into cultivation, and so rent has commenced on that of the first; but there is still free land. In Aneityum, too, there seems to be land not yet appropriated. In Fiji people destitute of land are found. Among the Western tribes of Torres Straits all arable land is divided up into properties, as Haddon tells us; but whether the rest of the land is still free is not quite clear. With regard to the Murray Islands we cannot arrive at any definite conclusion.

Generally speaking we may conclude that in Polynesia and Micronesia all land has been appropriated, whereas in the Melanesian Islands free land still exists.

We see further that not only the arable land is held as property, but often also the fruit-trees, lakes and streams, the shore and the lagoon as far as the reef. On most Polynesian and Micronesian islands whatever portion of land or water can yield any profit has been appropriated.

§ 8. Landlords, tenants and labourers in Oceania.

It appears from the foregoing paragraphs that in those islands where all land has been appropriated, there are nearly always found people destitute of land. The only exceptions are Rotuma and Pelau. Gardiner, in his very minute article on Rotuma, makes no mention of social ranks; and Kubary, as we have already seen in the second chapter of Part I, states that “among the Pelau islanders there is no question of a division of the people into ranks or classes.” But Semper, as has also been shown in the same chapter, speaks of a despised working class [1342]. Regarding the social classes on Easter Island we are not sufficiently informed.

Another state of things would not be inconceivable. It were quite possible that every inhabitant had appropriated a portion of the land, nothing of it remaining unclaimed. Yet it is easy to understand that, when all land has become individual property, a class of people destitute of land is likely soon to arise. In large families the portions falling to each of the children will often become too small to live upon. And where it is customary to buy and sell land, there may be improvident people who squander the land that was to afford them subsistence. But the principal cause probably is the arbitrary conduct of the chiefs and other men of power who appropriate the land of their enemies, and even, under some pretext, that belonging to their own subjects.

In Tahiti the chiefs had “a desire for war, as a means of enlarging their territory, and augmenting their power” [1343].

Regarding Hawaii Ellis tells us: “When Tamehameha had subdued the greater part of the islands, he distributed them among his favourite chiefs and warriors, on condition of their rendering him, not only military service, but a certain proportion of the produce of their lands. This also appears to have been their ancient practice on similar occasions, as the hoopahora or papahora, division of land among the ranakira or victors, invariably followed the conquest of a district or island”. Wilkes says: “Any chieftain, who could collect a sufficient number of followers to conquer a district, or an island, and had succeeded in his object, proceeded to divide the spoils, or “cut up the land”, as the natives termed it. The king, or principal chief, made his choice from the best of the lands. Afterwards the remaining part of the territory was distributed among the leaders, and these again subdivided their shares to others, who became vassals, owing fealty to the sovereigns of the fee. The king placed some of his own particular servants on his portion as his agents, to superintend the cultivation. The original occupants who were on the land, usually remained under their new conqueror, and by them the lands were cultivated, and rent or taxes paid.” Remy equally states that a victorious chief gave the lands of the conquered party to his followers [1344].

On Niué (Savage Island), “in fighting times the braves (toa) ignored all rights and seized upon any land that they were strong enough to hold” [1345].

On Nauru the chief had the right to keep all the land his tribe had conquered for himself or distribute it among the other chiefs of the tribe [1346].

In the Kingsmill Islands the katoka are persons who “either by the favour of their chief or by good fortune in war, have acquired land” [1347]. Hence it appears that, here too, the victors used to occupy the lands of the conquered.

In Fiji, according to Waterhouse, one of the motives of war was the desire for land. Williams also states that each government “seeks aggrandizement at the expense of the rest” by means of conquest, and he adds that the inhabitants of conquered districts were reduced to an abject servitude. According to Wilkes, “the victorious party often requires the conquered to yield the right of soil”. Fison says: “It is certain that in former days, when population seems to have been on the increase ... tribes were dispossessed of their lands by other tribes who took them into their occupation, and are the tauke of the present day” [1348].

We have seen in § 5 that a New Zealander sometimes claimed land “by having helped in the war party which took the land.” According to Ellis, a desire to enlarge their territory led to frequent wars. Thomson tells us: “Sometimes whole tribes became nominally slaves, although permitted to live at their usual places of residence, on the condition of catching eels and preparing food for their conquerors at certain seasons” [1349].

In New Caledonia the inhabitants of conquered districts have to pay a tribute to the conqueror, but generally continue living under their own chiefs [1350].

Von Bülow states that in Samoa conquered lands become the private property of the victorious chief [1351].

It appears that this conquering of land does not always create a class destitute of land; sometimes the inhabitants have only to pay a tribute. But where individuals belonging to the victorious tribe receive portions of the conquered land allotted to them, as in New Zealand and the Kingsmill Islands, or where, as in Samoa, the land becomes the private property of the conquering chief, the original owners consequently are deprived of their property.

It also occurs that within the tribe the land is taken away from its owner.

Williams states that in Fiji an adulterer may be deprived of his land as a punishment; and Fison tells us that the chiefs have overridden the ancient customs regarding land tenure [1352].

In Tahiti, those who resisted the king’s authority were banished and deprived of their lands. “Should the offender have been guilty of disobedience to the just demands of the king, though the lands might be his hereditary property, he must leave them, and become, as the people expressed it, a “wanderer upon the road”” [1353].

In Niué, widows and orphans “are frequently robbed of the land inherited from their dead husbands and fathers” [1354].

In Ebon, confiscation of land by the chief was formerly a mode of punishment [1355].

On the Kingsmill Islands, if a noble girl were to have connection with a man of the middle class, she would lose her landed property [1356].

On Nauru, according to Krämer, a murderer in most cases has to yield his land to the parents of his victim. Jung tells us that formerly the chiefs often had to settle disputes about land among their subjects. They then generally took the land from the quarreling parties and regarded it as their own [1357].

Among the Melanesians described by Codrington the chiefs “often use their power to drive away the owners of gardens they desire to occupy” [1358].

Where land is so highly valued, and wealth and power depend upon the possession of it, the chiefs and other men of power will be inclined to appropriate as much of it as possible. This is not always easy, and sometimes, in democratically organized societies, hardly practicable; but we may be sure that it will be done on the very first opportunity. This is strikingly proved by what Gardiner tells us of Rotuma: “Since the introduction of missionaries, too, much land has been seized by the chiefs, who, as a rule, in each district were its missionaries, as fines for the fornications of individuals. A certain amount of cocoanut oil was then given by the chiefs to the Wesleyan Mission, apparently in payment for their support. The mission in the name of which it was done, though generally without the knowledge of the white teachers, was so powerful that the hoag had no redress.” Formerly individual rights to land in Rotuma were highly respected: “The victorious side obtained no territorial aggrandisement, as it was to the common interest of all to maintain the integrity of the land, and the victors might on some future occasion be themselves in the position of the vanquished” [1359]. We may suppose that originally the chiefs were not powerful enough to appropriate land belonging to others; but the additional power that the new religion gave them enabled them to seize the lands of their subjects, and they immediately availed themselves of this opportunity.

A similar change has taken place in Samoa. In Turner’s time Samoan government had “more of the patriarchal and democratic in it, than of the monarchical.” Von Bülow, writing several years later than Turner, states that some chiefs have lately introduced what he calls serfdom. In the villages where this state of things exists the inhabitants live on land belonging to the chief. They pay no rent, but are obliged to stand by the chief in war and peace. They are personally free and have the right to emigrate, but own no land [1360].

We can now perfectly understand why people destitute of land are found in so many of these islands. And as most often not only the arable land, but fruit-trees, lakes, streams, and the sea adjoining the land are individual property, these people are entirely at the mercy of the landowners. We shall see that they have to perform the drudgery for the landlords, and are sometimes heavily oppressed.

In Tonga, the lowest class were the tooas. “The tooas can be divided into three categories. A few of them are warriors and form part of the retinue of the chiefs; some are professed cooks in the service of the superior or inferior chiefs; others, and these form the majority, till the soil. The latter are found all over the country and have no other employment” [1361].

“The institutions of Niué seem always to have been republican” says B. Thomson [1362].

In Samoa, in Turner’s time, a democratic and even communistic régime prevailed. Speaking of the chief, Turner says: “With a few exceptions, he moves about, and shares in everyday employments, just like a common man. He goes out with the fishing party, works in his plantations, helps at house-building, and lends a hand at the native oven.” The Samoans were very hospitable: “In addition to their own individual wants, their hospitable custom in supplying, without money and without stint, the wants of visitors from all parts of the group, was a great drain on their plantations.” Hale states that “the common people are in general the relatives and dependents of the tulafales [landlords] and have no direct influence in the government” [1363]. We have seen that recently a class of people destitute of land has been created by some chiefs; but their lot does not seem to be a hard one.

Gardiner, in his description of Rotuma, makes no mention of social classes.

In Tahiti, the lowest class were the manahune, including, besides the titi or slaves, “the teuteu or servants of the chiefs; all who were destitute of any land, and ignorant of the rude arts of carpentering, building, etc., which are respected among them, and such as were reduced to a state of dependence upon those in higher stations.” Speaking of the great landholders, our informant says: “Possessing at all times the most ample stores of native provisions, the number of their dependents, or retainers, was great. The destitute and thoughtless readily attached themselves to their establishments, for the purpose of securing the means of subsistence without care or apprehension of want.” That the landholders enjoyed great consideration is also proved by Wilkes’s remark, that the chiefs “find in their possession [of land] an acknowledged right to rank and respectability” [1364].

In Hawaii, four social ranks existed. The members of the third rank held land, “cultivating it either by their own dependents and domestics, or letting it out in small allotments to tenants.... In the fourth rank may be included the small farmers, who rent from ten to twenty or thirty acres of land; the mechanics, namely, canoe and house builders, fishermen, musicians, and dancers; indeed, all the labouring classes, those who attach themselves to some chief or farmer, and labour on his land for their food and clothing, as well as those who cultivate small portions of land for their own advantage.” “Sometimes the poor people take a piece of land, on condition of cultivating a given portion for the chief, and the remainder for themselves, making a fresh agreement after every crop. In addition to the above demands, the common people are in general obliged to labour, if required, part of two days out of seven, in cultivating farms, building houses, etc. for their landlord. A time is usually appointed for receiving the rent, when the people repair to the governor’s with what they have to pay. If the required amount is furnished, they return, and, as they express it (komo hou), enter again on their land. But if unable to pay the required sum, and their landlords are dissatisfied with the presents they have received, or think the tenants have neglected their farm, they are forbidden to return, and the land is offered to another. When, however, the produce brought is nearly equal to the required rent, and the chiefs think the occupants have exerted themselves to procure it, they remit the deficiency, and allow them to return” [1365]. This is quite the reverse of what occurs in slave countries. The slave or serf is prevented from escaping and compelled to remain with his master; the Hawaiian tenant, if the landlord is dissatisfied with the produce brought, is forbidden to return to the land of his employer. In the same sense, Wilkes remarks: “What appears most extraordinary, this bond [i.e. the bond between landlord and tenant] was more often severed by the superiors than by their vassals” [1366].

In Rarotonga, the lowest class are the unga or servants who have to cultivate the lands of the nobles, build their houses and canoes, make nets for them, pay them tributes, and in general obey all their demands [1367].

In the Marquesas Islands, the kikinos (common people) were servants and soldiers of the chiefs. They were always free to leave their employers. The chief, in his turn, if he was not satisfied with a servant, might expel him from his domain [1368]. Here again we may mark the great difference between the lower classes of Polynesia and slaves; for the latter are not expelled by way of punishment, but on the contrary forced to remain with their masters.

In Mangarewa, as has been noticed, the whole of the land belonged to the nobility, who often leased their lands to the third class, the common people [1369].

In the Tokelau group, the common people till the lands of the nobles for a payment in kind. A labourer has the right to leave his employer and go into another man’s service [1370].

In the Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman groups, the common people own no land; they serve the members of the upper classes and form their retinue; in reward they are provided with cocoanuts and other fruits and allowed to fish on the reef and in the lagoon [1371].

In New Zealand, as has been shown in § 5, every freeman owned land. Accordingly, we find only a beginning of the formation of a class of free labourers. Polack states that “the poorest classes work as freedmen on the farms of their richer relatives” [1372].

On Easter Island, the king formerly held a despotic sway over the common people, i.e. those who did not belong to the nobility [1373].

Gerland remarks that the two principal classes, nobles and common people, were nowhere in Polynesia less strictly separated than in Samoa and New Zealand. This strikingly shows that the appropriation of the land was really the basis of Polynesian aristocracy; for Samoa and New Zealand, as we have found, were almost the only Polynesian groups in which there was still free land [1374].

Regarding the condition of the common people in Micronesia we have already mentioned many particulars in § 7 of the second chapter of Part I in inquiring whether they were to be regarded as slaves, and in § 6 of this chapter in order to prove that all land had been appropriated. We shall briefly repeat here what bears on their condition and the work imposed upon them, adding such details as have not yet been mentioned.

Steinbach states that in the Marshall Islands neither the lowest nor the next higher class owns land, “but they are allowed to grow as much produce or catch as much fish as is necessary for their sustenance. They have to perform certain services for the chiefs, such as the cutting of copra”. And Krämer tells us that the common people are a subjected class without property. The kings have an absolute rule over the people and many islands are their exclusive property. They may take as many women as they like from among the people as wives or concubines. The common man has only one wife and even this one his superiors may take away at their pleasure [1375].

On Nauru, the lower classes (sometimes called “serfs” or “slaves” by the authors) are in the service of the chiefs and nobles.

In Ebon, the common people live on land allotted to them by the chief who can take it from them at his pleasure. Every week they have, each of them, to provide the chief with a fixed quantity of food.

In Mortlock, according to Kubary, social ranks do not exist.

On the isle of Kusaie the chiefs have unlimited power. The common people are obliged to build houses and canoes for them and till their lands; the chiefs may always seize the goods and command the services of the people; the cocoanuts, which are rare, are for the chiefs alone; they receive a certain proportion of all the fish that is caught [1376].

In Yap, the lowest class (whom Gräffe wrongly calls slaves) are obliged daily to provide the upper classes with agricultural produce, and whenever the chiefs require it to aid in constructing houses and canoes. Whatever they possess, even to their wives and daughters, may at any time be required by the upper classes. Yet all labour is not exclusively incumbent on them. They are only bound to definite taxes, viz. to a tribute of victuals, and of mats and other materials for housebuilding; and their “slave-state” consists rather in a low and dependent condition than in being taxed with labour.

On the Marianne Islands there were three classes: nobles, semi-nobles, and common people. The common people were strictly separated from the nobles and entirely subjected to them. They were not allowed to navigate or fish or take part in any other pursuit followed by the nobles. Their principal occupations were tilling the soil, constructing roads, building canoe-houses, making nets, carrying ammunition in war, cooking rice, roots, etc. As they were forbidden to use canoes and fishing implements, the only fish they could procure were eels, which the nobles disdained; and even these they might only catch with the hand, not by means of nets or fish-hooks [1377].

In Pelau, according to Kubary, there are no social classes; but the wants of the chiefs are generally provided for by the work of dependent relatives, who are treated as adopted children and may at any time leave their employers. Semper, however, speaks of a despised working class.

On the Kingsmill Islands, according to Parkinson, there are two subjected classes. One is the class of the te torre, who live as vassals on the lands of the great landholders; they get a small piece of land for their own use; they must provide their lord with men when at war, and bring him the number of cocoanuts he desires, and what he needs for his household. The lowest class are the te bei or kaungo. They have no property, no land to live upon; they live with the great landholders by whom they are maintained; they on their part must work for their lords, i.e. fish, prepare food, etc. The lord, by giving them a piece of land, can raise them to the class of the te torre. These two classes have no voice in government matters; they follow their lord without grumbling; his will is their will; an offence against the lord is regarded by them as a personal offence, and avenged as such. Generally no one marries outside his class. In ordinary life there is no difference between master and vassal; they drink, dance, and play together; they wear the same kind of dress.

We shall inquire now what is the condition of the lower classes in Melanesia.

Rochas states that in New Caledonia the common people enjoy a rather independent position; they have to perform some services for the chiefs, which chiefly consist in cultivating their lands; but they always own a piece of land themselves. They are, however, sometimes killed by the upper chiefs for cannibal purposes. Glaumont enumerates the following classes: sorcerers, warriors, common people, slaves. But he adds that the chief himself, however powerful, would not dare to take away the field of taros or ignames belonging to the least of his subjects. According to Brainne, there are two classes: numerous chiefs of various kinds, and serfs, over whom the former, especially the superior chiefs, have the right of life and death. Lambert, a good authority, remarks that the only division of the people is that between the chiefs and their relatives and the rest of the population, and observes that those writers are wrong who speak of a class of nobles. The chief is not allowed to dispose of the property of his subjects [1378]. So it seems that the natives here are rather democratically organized.

In Fiji, according to Williams, the lower classes were formerly heavily oppressed. The chiefs looked upon them as their property, and took away their goods and often even their lives; this was considered “chief-like.” “Subjects” says Williams “do not pay rent for their land, but a kind of tax on all their produce, beside giving their labour occasionally in peace, and their service, when needed, in war, for the benefit of the king or their own chief.” Waterhouse states that many poor men could not procure a wife; they then borrowed one from a chief, and so became his retainers. Fison, speaking of the inhabitants of certain villages, says: “These are of the lowest rank, or rather of no rank at all. They are kaisi, the descendants of “children without a father.” They are vakatau ni were (husbandmen), but they are not yeomen like the taukei. Neither the lands they cultivate, nor the town lots on which they dwell are their own. They are not even tenants. They are hereditary bondsmen, adscripti glebae, whose business it is to raise food for their masters. Their lords may oppress them, and they have no redress. In times of peace they must work for them and in war time they must fight for them to the death”. According to Wilkes, “in each tribe great and marked distinctions of rank exist. The classes which are readily distinguished are as follows: 1. kings; 2. chiefs; 3. warriors; 4. landholders (matanivanua); 5. slaves (kai-si).” In another passage he speaks of “the kai-si or common people”. In Jackson’s narrative, quoted above, mention is also made of these kai-si or inhabitants of “slave lands” [1379].

Codrington remarks: “In the native view of mankind, almost everywhere in the islands which are here under consideration [Solomon Islands, Santa Cruz Group, Banks’ Islands, and New Hebrides], nothing seems more fundamental than the division of the people into two or more classes, which are exogamous, and in which descent is counted through the mother.... Generally speaking, it may be said that to a Melanesian man all women, of his own generation at least, are either sisters or wives, to the Melanesian woman all men are either brothers or husbands” [1380]. This seems to be sufficient proof that a subjected and despised lowest class does not exist; else the natives would not all be “brothers” and “sisters”.

This conclusion is strengthened by consulting some other writers.

Guppy, describing the Solomon Islands, makes no mention of social ranks. Elton states that the chiefs have little power [1381]. Nor have we found in any of the other writers anything tending to prove that the common people are oppressed.

Regarding the New Hebrides, Hagen and Pineau, after speaking of the chiefs, state that the next class are the warriors, which rank can be obtained by a payment of pigs. They make no mention of a despised or oppressed working class. Inglis, as we have seen above, states that in the isle of Aneityum “there is no large proprietor, no powerful or wealthy chief; every man sits proprietor of his own cottage, his own garden, and his own cultivated patches.” Turner, speaking of the isle of Tana, says: “The affairs of this little community are regulated by the chiefs and the heads of families”; and in Eromanga, according to the same writer, the chiefs “were numerous, but not powerful”. According to Ribbe, in the Shortland Islands (near Bougainville), the chiefs have little power [1382]. From all this we may safely conclude that social life in the New Hebrides is democratically organized.

In the Gazelle Peninsula of Neu Pommern wealth gives power; but there is no social or political difference between the rich and the poor [1383].

In the Nissan Islands poverty is unknown, as there is an abundance of free land fit for cultivation. Social classes do not exist. There is no nobility, unless the chief and his relatives be regarded as such [1384].

Parkinson states that among the Moanus of the Admiralty Islands the power of the chiefs is considerable [1385]. We do not, however, hear of a subjection of the common people by the upper classes.