THE TENURE OF LAND
At the cession of the islands in 1874 the form of land tenure among the
Fijians was very imperfectly understood. Most of the settlers, seeing
the large tracts of uncultivated land and the comparatively small
patches of cultivation round the native villages, planted one year and
deserted the next in favour of virgin soil, did not believe that the
natives had any definite system of land tenure, or that, with so large a
tract of waste land, they had found the necessity for evolving
proprietary rights in the soil.
[Pageheader: THE PROPRIETARY UNIT]
As soon as the sale of land by the chiefs to Europeans came to be
investigated by the Lands Commission there was a bitter controversy as
to what was the proprietary unit in the eye of customary law. It was the
object of every claimant to land to show that the proprietary unit was
the chief who had signed the deed upon which he relied. The natives on
the other hand, chiefs and people alike, were at pains to prove that the
land was vested in the people, that the chief virtually had no interest
in it at all, and had acted _ultra vires_ in selling it. The reader will
remember the disastrous mistake made by the Government in British
India--how as our empire spread our representatives took from their
Mahommedan predecessors the assumption that all private property in land
was held from the sovereign; that the soil was therefore theirs, and
that any land laws would be of their creation; how Lord Cornwallis
converted the Mahommedan tax-gatherers into landed proprietors, and how
in the southern provinces this was reversed and the Government
recognized nothing between itself and the proprietors. Both these
beliefs proved to be erroneous, because as in Fiji they were attempting
to make certain facts accord with European ideas. In India the real unit
was the village community; in Fiji, the tribal community.
The inquiries of the Lands Commission have shown that the proprietary
unit is an aggregation of Matankalis seldom less than four, subdivided
in their turn into Tokatoka (septs), but known for ordinary purposes by
the name of the village they inhabit, or on occasions of ceremony by
their title, _Thavu_. This title is in some instances, probably in all,
taken from the name of the site of their original village. Matankalis
generally took their name from the house site of their founders. A
process of fission and fusion (unfortunately the latter in these days of
excessive mortality) is continually taking place. If a Tokatoka becomes
too numerous it is subdivided, and the new sept takes its name from that
of the house in which its leader lives. If it becomes more numerous
still it is called a Matankali. When the Matankali becomes reduced to
six males or less, it is usually absorbed, and becomes a Tokatoka of the
Matankali most nearly allied to it.[106]
The early basis of society throughout the world is kinship. If a man is
not a kinsman, then he is an enemy, the craftiest order of wild beast.
Among primitive tribes the groups of consanguineous relations are much
larger than among civilized peoples, because there is always a tendency
for persons owning any tie of kinship to band together for mutual
protection. The Fijians had no territorial roots. It is not too much to
say that no tribe now occupies the land held by its fathers two
centuries ago. They are united by consanguinity, not by the joint
ownership of the soil. But the longer they stay upon land, the stronger
becomes their connection with it, until at last it becomes the basis of
brotherhood, and the adoption of a stranger confers nearly the same
privileges as those enjoyed by full-born members of the tribe.
The evolution of the chief in Polynesia is not so complicated as in
Europe. Chiefs in ancient Greece were necessarily wealthy, and in Europe
wealth led to chieftaincy. But in Fiji the chief arrived at his position
only in virtue of being the representative of the purest line of the
common ancestor, related to his inferiors of the same tribe, but
distinct from the surrounding tribes, who admitted his authority in
virtue of conquest. Sir Henry Maine well says, "When the relation which
it created lasted some time, there would have been no deadlier insult to
the lord than to have attributed to him a common origin with the great
bulk of his tenants." For tenants in England innocent names have come to
bear an insulting meaning; "villain," "churl" and "boor" are names
perverted by the chiefs to indicate their contempt for the tenants, with
whom in reality they were related.
The exalted rank of the high chiefs in Fiji does not seem to arise until
his tribe has subdued others by conquest. His people seemed to treat him
with far greater respect when he had allowed _fuidhir_
tenants--fugitives from broken tribes--to settle on the waste lands of
the tribe. The superstitious element that had hitherto lain dormant then
brought into prominence the fact that in his body ran the purest blood
of the Kalou-Vu, the ancestor-god, a being to whom reverence as well as
obedience must be paid. The priests, who always cultivated an excellent
understanding with the chiefs, encouraged this feeling, and in return
the chief took care that the offerings to the gods were not stinted. At
the death of the chief there was a limited election, such as was
practised in Ireland as late as 1596. The candidates for election were
limited first to the brothers of the deceased, and in default to his
cousins, the sons of his brothers' brother. In default of these the son
was elected if he was old enough. The reason for this law of succession
is obvious. The tribe must have a leader in the zenith of his powers,
and the dead chief's brother was looked upon as the most fit person to
be regent during the son's minority. The eldest brother succeeded,
unless there were objections to him. In Bureta the ancient ceremony was
still practised up to a few years ago. The people were assembled after
the burial of the chief, and one of the elders of the tribe proposed the
name of his successor. Often voices from the crowd shouted objections.
"No, he is hasty tempered." "One goes into his house hungry and he gives
not to eat." Even if they had resolved on the appointment of the eldest
brother as successor the objections were still made as a delicate hint
to him to amend his conduct when he became chief. He was then taken to a
stream and bathed, and the chief's _masi_ was then wrapped round him.
Once elected, whether by the actual ceremony or by a survival of it, he
assumed control over the tenants in villeinage and over the waste lands
of the tribe.
[Pageheader: THREE KINDS OF REAL ESTATE]
Now, among tribes sprung from a common origin, living upon adjacent
lands, practising the same form of religion, subjected to the same
conditions of intertribal warfare, and having attained the same social
development, one would expect to find the land laws almost identical,
but, on the contrary, in the narrow area formed by the watershed on the
eastern part of Vitilevu, no less than eight systems of tenure have been
found to exist.
The title to land is vested in the full-born members of a tribe. Three
kinds of land are recognized. The _yavu_ or town lot, the _nkele_ or
arable land, and the _veikau_ or forest. The two first of these are
nominally in the occupation of the heads of families. The _veikau_ is
common to all the members of the community, but it is always liable to
be encroached upon and appropriated according to the rules to be laid
down when I come to discuss the _nkele_.
The Yavu or Building Site
The nucleus of every Fijian village has been at no very remote date a
single family, inhabiting a single house. As Fijians from the parent
stock multiplied, houses were built round the site of the house of the
common ancestor. Each son when he married and settled down, chose for
himself a site for his house, within the limits of the fortification.
He named it after his own fancy, and when imagination failed him, after
the nearest natural object. Thus most Fijian houses are named after some
native tree. In the course of years, or the vicissitudes of war, the
village was removed, but when this was done, the new settlement was
built as nearly as possible upon the exact plan of the old one. I have
watched the process. When the site was decided upon the chief went with
his people, and selected a site for his own house. In heathen times, the
position of the _Mbure_, or temple, was first marked out, and the chief
pitched his temporary shelter in a position that corresponded with the
site of his house in the village he had abandoned. Then his nearest
neighbours marked out the sites of their houses. Their neighbours
followed, and so on until the new village corresponded exactly with the
old, as far as the nature of the ground permitted. If the town increased
in size, new ground from outside the moat was appropriated by the
householders in want of a house, and the moat was dug so as to include
it. These house sites descended by the ordinary law of inheritance to
the eldest brother, or in default of a brother, to the eldest son. One
man, especially if he were a representative of a decaying family, might
own several. For years no house might have been built upon them, and
yet, unless he formally conveyed them to another, the right of himself
and his heirs was never disputed. The proprietary rights were most
jealously guarded. Between each _yavu_ there must be space for a path,
and the eaves of your house must not project so as to drip upon a part
of the path appertaining to your neighbour's _yavu_. A _yavu_ might
occasionally, though rarely, be given in dowry, but in such cases it
reverted, as in the case of arable land, to the descendants of the
original owner.
Nkele, Or Arable Land
[Pageheader: METHOD OF APPROPRIATING COMMONS]
The _nkele_ is simply that portion of the _veikau_ or forest that has
been appropriated. Once appropriated it descends according to the fixed
laws of inheritance. But the ownership of a proprietor is strictly
limited. There is no more absolute ownership known to the Fijian
customary law than there is to the English. "No man is in law the
absolute owner of lands. He can only hold an estate in them."[107] The
tenure of the _nkele_ may be best compared to an estate for life. Each
owner holds for the household to which he belongs; the household holds
for the sept, the sept for the clan, the clan for the community, and the
community for posterity. The owner of the _nkele_ had over his land a
little less than _dominium_ and a little more than _usufruct_.
Now that the tribes have been so reduced in numbers by war and foreign
diseases, and whole villages have been swept away, leaving only one or
two representatives who have merged themselves for shelter and
protection in the community most nearly allied to them, there is still
little, even of the forest land, that has not some reputed owner. Thus,
when a man would clear and cultivate some patch far removed from the
village and overgrown by trees he first inquires (if he does not know)
who is the direct descendant and representative of the tribe that
formerly planted on the land. It is rare that no claimant can be found,
and in some cases the communal rights have apparently merged into the
individual ownership of a solitary survivor. But among tribes who have
quite lately fought their way into land belonging to their neighbours,
and who have successfully held the conquered territory until the cession
of the islands to England, no member of the tribe can have rights over
the _veikau_ greater than those enjoyed by his fellows. Among these one
may almost daily observe the manner of appropriating land when required
for planting purposes. Under the primitive system, agricultural crops
could not be grown in the same soil with success for more than two
seasons, and consequently an industrious planter will have patches of
cultivation scattered about upon the flat land bordering the
watercourses for a large area surrounding the village. When he would
acquire and dig a new garden he goes to the chief and uses some such
formula as this: "I have come, sir, to speak about my garden. I wish to
plant on the little flat known as So-and-so." The chief asks those round
him whether the land has an owner, and if they answer in the negative,
tells the man to report his intention to his Matankali. Thenceforward
the land, or the usufruct of it, is appropriated by that man and his
heirs.
So simple a procedure cannot of course be tolerated unless the land far
exceeds the requirements of the population; and it is curious to note in
some communities such as Rewa, where the people outnumber the
planting-grounds, that the procedure for appropriation or transfer
becomes at once more formal and elaborate.
The ancient boundaries of lands were continually contracting and
extending, in accordance with the military strength of the tribe. But
when tribes were of nearly equal strength, and the fortunes of war were
doubtful, both sides were as anxious to maintain peace as the
diplomatist of modern Europe. Questions of land boundaries, where the
land was so far more abundant than either side required, were submitted
to a rough form of arbitration. If one tribe could show occupation, the
other gave way rather than fight about such a trifle. Unless it had
strategic importance or bore valuable fruit-trees, or salt-pans, or some
other product whose loss would be felt, land in itself in those days was
of no account. Almost the only things of value that the Fijians
recognized in connection with land were the products of human
industry--wells, trees and crops. To claim another man's plantation was
a _casus belli_: to appropriate a patch of forest, reputed to belong to
a neighbour, was an offence that could be palliated by a paltry present.
Thus, if the council of the tribe determined to lay claim to a boundary
enclosing a strip of debatable land, they sent men to acquire and plant
gardens as near the projected boundary as possible. These gardens became
the property of the men who planted them, and of their heirs, unless of
course the neighbours resented the intrusion, and drove them back. The
same custom prevails even more largely under the English Government. As
soon as the lands court is reported to be about to visit the district,
every tribe begins extending its forest boundaries. The claims
invariably overlap, and when the surveyor visits the spot, he finds
newly-made plantations overlapping one another for several furlongs in
inextricable confusion. Any of these plantations, if the claimants be
successful, will be vested in the persons who acquired them, with of
course the same restrictions as applies to the tenure of _nkele_
generally.
[Pageheader: METHOD OF EVICTION]
Having sketched the manner of acquisition and appropriation of common
land, I will now describe the common method of divesting the person of
ownership. This could only be done immediately after appropriation, as a
protest against his right to acquire and plant, or as punishment for a
crime. In the latter case the crime must in some way have infringed upon
the rights or dignity of a chief, and that chief must feel in himself
the power to support his prohibition by force of arms if need be. The
custom was called _veisauthi_. It consisted in sticking a row of peeled
reeds into the acquired ground. From this the land-grabber understood
that he planted again at his peril. If he felt strong enough he might
continue, but he would have to fight for it. As a general rule he
desisted, because he knew that the protesting parties, whoever they
were, had not taken this step without counting the cost. If the
protestors were persons within his own tribe, the dispute would be
brought up before the council of headmen, and adjusted one way or the
other. If the _veisauthi_ was resorted to as a punishment for an injury
to the chief, it was erected upon all the planting-lands of the
offending person. It had only one meaning, that he must flee for his
life, and, conscious of his guilt, he almost invariably did so. Even if
he were stronger than the chief he fled to collect his strength among
the enemies of the tribe, for the _veisauthi_ in this case meant that he
would be killed by foul means rather than fair--by the club in his
sleep, or by poison.
The Veikau, or Forest
[Pageheader: EVOLUTION OF THE LANDLORD]
This term included all the uncultivated lands within the reputed
boundaries of the tribe. As I have already said, these boundaries
fluctuated with its military strength. Much of the land was worthless
for cultivation, rough, bare hills, from which every scrap of soil had
been washed by the summer rains, and on which the scanty herbage was
scorched dry by the winter drought, and burnt annually in the autumn
bush fires. To such land as this no value whatever was attached. At the
foot of every hill ran streams, with patches of rich land here and there
along their banks. To include this, the claim was laid to the whole
tract. Besides its value as planting land, the actual forest was often
claimed for the rights of cutting timber, and pasturing herds of
half-wild pigs. Forests containing the _vesi_, valued as the best timber
for the posts of houses, or sandal-wood, a profitable article of barter
from remote times, were claimed with the same tenacity as in the case of
the _nkele_; but they were claimed by the whole community, not by
individuals. We have now to observe a very curious transition from
communal waste lands to land owned exclusively, under the law, which is
so well described by Sir Henry Maine. The waste lands belonged,
collectively, to the tribe, but inasmuch as tribal matters were decided
for the community by the chief, and an oligarchy of his supporters, the
ordinary freeborn men of the tribe gradually ceased to ask for any voice
in the disposal of the waste lands. The chief, accustomed to decide
questions of appropriation without reference to his people, came
gradually to look upon the waste lands as his private estate. The change
finally came when fugitives approached the tribe asking for their
protection. They came, of course, to the chief, as the tribal
representative, and asked for protection, and for the usufruct of land
on which to plant their food. He, in the name of the tribe, allotted to
them a portion of the _veikau_ on the ordinary tenure of dependants,
namely, an annual tribute from the crops grown upon the land. This
tribute, presented to the chief, was divided out among his own people,
but gradually the annual tribute was supplemented by produce yielded on
the chief's demand, whenever he had a feast to make. In making these
demands he was no longer acting as a tribal representative, but as an
individual. In the course of generations, the origin of tenure faded
from the memory of the people, and it was only remembered that the land
was held upon the condition of personal tribute to the chief, to be
yielded on his demand. He was, in fact, the landlord, they the tenants.
I shall describe in detail various tenancies that arose in this manner.
We are concerned at present with its bearing upon the _veikau_. Among
the lands thus granted to dependant tribes were considerable tracts that
remained uncultivated. In theory the grant had been only in respect of
the land actually used, but in practice it was common to regard the
_veikau_ surrounding the plantations as tenanted by the dependant tribe.
This portion of the _veikau_ was held on a different tenure from the
main portion claimed by the predominant tribe. In the latter case the
chief alone claimed the disposal of it, or of the trees that grew upon
it. In the former he rarely gave leave even for the cutting of trees,
without first intimating his intention to his tenants. They had in fact
acquired rights over it allied to usufruct. They might cut timber in
moderation without leave. They could appropriate to individuals of the
tribe such portions as they required, but they might not grant leave to
cut timber to outsiders without first obtaining the chiefs permission.
The owners of the soil of a conquered tribe are reduced to a servile
status provided that their conquerors settle within reach of them. Mere
conquest without occupation produces no change in the form of tenure.
Tribute may be paid perhaps for a year or two, but as soon as the
conquered tribe feels itself strong enough to repudiate its subjection
the tribute ceases, and the tenure of land within the limits of the
tribe have from the beginning remained unaffected. It is otherwise where
conquest is followed by occupation. In such cases, from free landowners
the conquered are reduced at one sweep to the _nkalini-ni-kuro_, or
kitchen men, the lowest status known to the Fijian customary law. An
instance of this sudden change is to be found in the tribes of Maumi,
Ovea and Mokani, who were probably originally owners of the soil on
which they live, but who have been reduced by the occupation of the Mbau
chiefs to the status of kitchen men. The ceremony of transfer varied in
different districts. In Mbau it took the form of the _soro-ni-nkele_
(earth tribute). When the conquered people came to pay their submission,
besides the whales' teeth they presented a basket of earth in token that
their land was at the disposal of their conquerors. This does not
necessarily mean that the land was conveyed to their conquerors, for
land, without people to cultivate it, was valueless. They rather
conveyed their own bodies with the land on which they lived as being
inseparable, and only valuable when in conjunction. Among primitive
peoples an act done at regular intervals tends to become a permanent
institution. There is no legislation among primitive tribes, but custom,
however it may arise, tends to become law.
[Illustration: Picking Cocoanuts.]
[Pageheader: OWNERSHIP OF TREES]
We come now to a feature in the rights of property that is very hard for
a European, trained in the systems that are based upon the ancient Roman
law, to comprehend. The doctrine _ab inferno usque ad coelum_ has no
bearing in the islands of the Pacific. As I have already said, land as
land had no value. Its value arose only from its potential produce. The
thing treated with most consideration among primitive peoples is human
labour, and the products of it. In Rome, and therefore of course in
modern Europe, if a man plants fruit-trees on another's land, he has no
claim to them. They belong to the soil in which they grow; but in Fiji,
while you may be wrong in planting cocoanuts upon land which belongs to
your neighbour, you do not on that account part with your rights over
the product of your labour. The land remains his, but the trees are
yours, from the surface of the soil to the topmost frond. You have,
moreover, in virtue of your property in the trees, a right of way over
his soil to get at your trees. To our minds this seems very unjust, but
it must be remembered that in a country where the population is sparse,
and where cocoanuts have at once a commercial value which land does
not possess, cocoanut trees are held in far higher estimation than the
soil in which they grow. As a general rule this conflicting form of
tenure does not arise through the secret planting of trees. The tree
owner or his father has, in almost every case, asked the leave of the
owner of the soil before planting his cocoanuts. Where two men are
connected through the marriage of their children or by merely personal
friendship, this is a very common form of mutual obligation. In the case
of chiefs, moreover, it is no uncommon thing for the overlord to pick
out the pockets of soil most suitable for the growth of cocoanuts, and
to order his vassals to go and plant them there. The tenants still
possess their rights over the soil, but they would not dare to claim the
nuts growing upon them. The distinction may be best seen by comparing
the crops of yams or plantains. The tenants would take the first-fruits
to the chief, preserving the rest for themselves, but they would take
all the cocoanuts, even after expending their own labour in gathering
and husking them. This form of tenure has been a great embarrassment in
settling the ownership of land. Now that modern ideas have begun to take
root, and that every land-owner hopes to let his land to a European at a
fixed annual rent, payable in cash, the owners of the trees confront him
at every point with their claims. The result is that the rights in the
trees are very often disputed. European notions have been dimly seized
upon, and land-owners stand upon their rights as if they had been bred
under the English law of Real Property. The only way to settle these
disputes is to buy out one of the claimants. Where this is not done, the
owners of the trees should be allowed to have twenty-five years'
usufruct of them, after which they and all others they may have planted
in the interim should pass to the owner of the soil.
Tenures in Rewa
Rewa is the most perfect example of a Fijian state known to us. Even its
disruption in the great war with Mbau in 1845 has not been able to snap
the ties that join the various units to the central power. So intimately
is the question of its political constitution connected with the tenure
of land that it is impossible to avoid giving it at some length.
The supreme government of the state was vested in the spiritual and
temporal chiefs, the Roko-tui Ndreketi and the Vunivalu, who was the
head of Nukunitambua. Unlike the system in the rival confederation of
Mbau and many other native states, the spiritual chiefs had not yet
parted with their executive power, nor had the Vunivalu yet succeeded in
reducing them to a position of secondary importance. Before the great
war between Mbau and Rewa, every clan had its part to play in the state.
Below the two great families of Narusa and Nukunitambua, the spiritual
and the temporal, which divided the power between them, were the six
clans that formed the Sauturanga (_lit._ defence of the chiefs). These
clans owed the superior chiefs no service but that of leading the army
into battle and of conducting ambuscades. They also supplied the
_matanivanua_ (heralds or _aides-de-camp_). In order of battle they were
the horns of the net--that is to say, while the main body of the army
held back in cover, they led simultaneous flanking movements under cover
of the grass or trees, and fell upon both flanks of the enemy at once,
driving them into the arms of the main body, who were lying in wait.
They were land-owners, and received _thokovaki_ rent from their tenants,
but they supplied no _thokovaki_ produce to the two governing families.
[Pageheader: CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE]
Next to these in rank were the chiefs of the allied states of
Mburebasanga, who were the _nkase_ (elders) of the Rewa chiefs and of
Notho. These were only subject to Rewa in so far that they were pledged
to order their vassals to perform work for the supreme chiefs. Of course
this tie arose from the Rewa chiefs having at some remote time conquered
them and come to live among them, and in the case of Notho, through the
Notho people as fugitives, having obtained leave, on the condition of
tribute, to settle upon land belonging to Rewa.
Next to these came the Kaso (cross-beams), who were perhaps originally
descendants of the younger sons of chiefs. The Kai Nalea, the first of
these, were the hereditary priests, whose power was broken in the
reformation already described, and next to them were the Kai Mbuli, who
had as tenants the Kai Malase.
Next came the trade clans, the fishermen of Vutia, Nukui and Nasilai,
the carpenters of Ndorokavu and the Tongan sailors of Nambua and
Singatoka. All these tribes owed service to the chiefs in the exercise
of their trade, and received grants of land from time to time in
recognition of their services.
Below these again were the free yeomen, the Kai Nandoi, and the villages
of Nakuru, Ndrekena, and Veiniu, called collectively the Kai Mbatikeri.
Next and below them came the Muainasau; below these again were the three
clans whose lands were in the mangrove swamps, and who were therefore
called Nkalivakawai (water subjects). These were the Kai Norothivo, Kai
Tavuya, and Kai Naiteni.
Lastly came the villeins, the Kai Loki and the Kai Nandoria, who were
_adscripti glebae_, and whose proprietary rights in the soil were so
slight as to be almost indefinable.
The Kai Vanualevu enjoyed a remarkable status. They were the sacred
tribe (Nkalitambu), and they owed the chief no service. Their special
function was the investiture of the Roko Tui Ndreketi in the ceremony of
the _yankona_ drinking, but this privilege does not seem to have
conferred upon them any special rank. Nevertheless, in such veneration
did they seem to have been held, that no one dared to plant on land they
had vacated. It is possible that this tribe are descended from the same
ancestors as the chiefs, and perhaps from an elder branch, but that,
owing to some tribal upheaval, the younger branch came to the front, and
with the loss of power the consideration in which the elder was held
dwindled away to this merely nominal status.
[Pageheader: INDIVIDUAL TENURE]
While the change from the independent Fijian state to a principal
province of the colony has done much towards obliterating the old
distinctions, it has not materially affected the customary law bearing
upon land tenure. Clans who are _thokovaki_ tenants of the Rewa chiefs,
such as Waivau, Vanualevu, and Vuthi, having been included for
administrative purposes within the boundaries of the Tailevu province,
are now required by law to render tributary service to Mbuli Tokatoka,
while they still continue voluntarily to pay tribute to their landlords
at Rewa. In this respect the establishment of a settled government has
accentuated in some measure the degree of their subjection. The taxation
system, in requiring that land held by individuals shall, for taxing
purposes, be regarded as communal property, has forced upon the natives
a retrogressive movement in their views of land tenure, but otherwise
the tenure remains unchanged. When the laws that now govern the native
race were framed, very little was known of the real nature of the
services rendered by commoners to their chiefs. The levies of the chiefs
were thought for the most part to be exercised in virtue of some kind of
divine right, or at least, if exercised in connection with land, to be
in virtue of the chief's exclusive ownership. But it certainly never
occurred to any of the members of the Governor's Council that _lala_ was
merely another form of rent. If this had been so, assuredly some steps
would have been taken to see that _lala_ was only exacted by the proper
landlords. For twenty years _lala_ has remained very loosely defined,
but unfortunately it has been often necessary to replace hereditary
chiefs by well-conducted persons of inferior rank, and the _lala_ has
been allowed to be exercised in virtue of office, rather than heredity.
All the native feelings of justice have naturally been outraged by their
being required to pay rent for their holdings to the mere nominee of an
alien Government, while the one person who, in their minds, has a right
to demand service from them is prohibited from doing so. In every
instance they have continued voluntarily to pay their rent, and have
grudgingly yielded a second tribute to the Government nominee, and have
further paid in respect of their lands a tax to the Government. If there
has been murmuring against the present form of native government, it has
been due, I am convinced, to this cause. In one respect the cession of
the colony has affected land tenure in a marked degree. It has put an
end to the continued transfer of land that flourished under the ancient
custom. With the abolition of heathen customs and the cessation of
native wars all reasons for permanent transfer have been swept away.
Individual Tenure
The communal tenure of the _veikau_ is found only in parts of the
country where the land is in excess of the requirements of the
population. Fortunately for students, there are in the group districts
where, from war, migration, or other causes, the population has become
congested. This is especially so in the delta of the Rewa river. The
customary laws in force in this district deserve special study. In Rewa
there is practically no communal tenure. Individual tenure is there due
to the fact that every unit of land had to be reclaimed from the river
or the sea. To this day, if one digs down a few feet below the surface,
anywhere upon the alluvial flats, one finds mangrove roots. Perhaps the
mangrove swamps were partly reclaimed by Nature, for the great floods
that occur almost annually bring down a vast quantity of silt, which
they deposit when the water recedes. But man has done much to extend the
process.
When floods are expected long trenches are dug, which leave tiny
embankments along their edge. The surface is flooded, the little ditches
are obliterated by the deposit, and the waters, held in by the
embankments, raise the entire surface of the land an inch or two. It is
obvious that among the primitive peoples a man must acquire proprietary
rights over land upon which he has expended labour.
Besides man, there is another agent at work in reclaiming land in the
mangrove swamp, which extended from the present coast-line to about two
miles below Nausori, where islands are raised a few inches above
high-water mark. These were the haunt of a burrowing crayfish, called
the _mana_, which plays the same part in the swamps as do the
earth-worms in the grass land in England. They are continually bringing
up the subsoil of the swamp to the surface, leaving a long tunnel,
reaching from the surface to the water underneath. As the tide rises
they crawl backwards, until at high tide they are close under the mound
they have raised. The Fijians, knowing this peculiarity, set at low tide
a most effective trap, by which the _mana_ is caught in a noose. I had
heard it said that they carried a number of them to their taro
plantations, and there set them at liberty, to carry on their unceasing
work of raising the soil. But all the natives I have questioned on the
point deny this, saying, "When did you ever know a Fijian let go an
animal that is good to eat? We do not look ahead like you white men."
However this may be, the _mana_ undoubtedly does increase the size of
these islands very rapidly.
[Pageheader: RECLAMATION FROM THE SWAMP]
The Rewa province is composed entirely of the alluvial flats in the
delta of the great river. Over a large portion of these flats the land
is broken up into little plots, surrounded by ditches, in which grow
_via_ and _taro_, while the higher ground included by them is covered
with fruit-trees, and yams or plantains. Each of these plots has an
owner; but the owners of contiguous ground are not usually men of the
same tribe. We found it quite impossible to set a boundary to the land
of any particular tribe, for the holdings of the individuals were
scattered about the country, among the holdings of other tribes, in
hopeless confusion. To explain this remarkable _morcellement_, which is
unknown in any other part of the colony which has yet been investigated,
we must turn to tradition, and to the peculiar political constitution of
the Rewa people. The first settlers who came to the delta from the
higher reaches of the river were the ancestors of the people of Nandoi,
driven down by internal commotion among the tribes that inhabited the
mountains. They found, at first, no land fit to grow yams or plantains,
but the little islands in the mangrove swamp were excellently adapted
for defence, and they planted swamp _via_ and _taro_, digging for the
purpose trenches with banks on either side. The floods came and filled
the trenches with silt. The process was repeated, until by degrees the
ancient trenches and ridges were obliterated, and the whole country was
converted into a rich alluvial flat, raised above the influence of the
tide, but not beyond the fertilizing action of the highest floods. It
was at this period that individual began to take the place of communal
ownership. Considerable labour had to be expended before a supply of
food could be grown. The wide circular trench must be dug, and the earth
built up in the middle to make a bed for yams and plantains, while the
trench was suitable for taro. This work was not severe enough to be
beyond the power of a single family, and no call was therefore made upon
the labours of the community, as in the case of public works of greater
magnitude. Thus, as the Nandoi people came to regard these valueless
swamps as their peculiar property, individual families appropriated
portions of their common land, upon the undeniable claim of having
expended labour upon them. Once appropriated, the land followed the
customary law of the inheritance of chattel property--that is to say, it
descended to the eldest surviving son, or, failing a son, to the eldest
surviving brother. In default of a male heir, it passed to the clan, to
be appropriated by an individual. It was like appropriation of _nkele_
in other districts, only the appropriation was more complete, inasmuch
as the labour expended on the property had been more severe.
In Rewa, moreover, the idea of communal ownership of land has died down,
since the whole of it has been appropriated, and there is none left to
be held in common.
While this explanation suffices to account for the existence of
individual tenure, it fails to explain the curiously scattered location
of the holdings. This, we thought, could only have been produced by an
organized system of conveying land from tribe to tribe, and we were
therefore at pains to trace the history of a number of these holdings,
in order to formulate a customary law, by which such questions were
governed. The result of our inquiries may be summarized as
follows:--There are nine distinct customs under which land may be
transferred:
1. Ai-thovithovi-ni-ndraundrau (_The plucking-place for the
flooring-grass_)
This was land given by the family of a bride as her dowry. In the
ceremony of conveyance they said, "We give this land that Nambutu's
child may eat of it, since he is our child as well as his." The husband,
as long as he lived with his wife, had the control of the land, and it
descended to her male children, but if she died without male issue it
reverted to the donors at the second generation. In this case it was
redeemed by the ceremony of _vakalutu_ (making to fall back). Until it
was so redeemed, the husband or his representatives could till or lease
the land, but not dispose of it. Cases have occurred in which the donors
have so long neglected to redeem their property that the circumstances
of the original transfer have been forgotten, and the tenants have
repudiated the demands for restitution. If there were a direct line of
male descendants of the original grantee, the land never reverted, and
it may be assumed that after land has been held for four or five
generations, the failure of the male line would not lead to the
restoration of the property to the original donors. There was no actual
customary law of limitation, but the grantees would decline to accept
the offerings of the _vakalutu_, and would be upheld in their refusal by
public opinion.
There was another form of dowry, called _ai-solisoli-i-tamana_ (the gift
to the father), which was a plot of land given as a personal present to
the bride's father, with which his sept or tribe had nothing to do. Such
land could never be redeemed, but this form of dowry was rare, being
confined to the marriage of daughters of high chiefs, whose families
were large landowners.
[Pageheader: THE CHILD'S INTRODUCTION]
2. Ketenialewa (_The woman's womb_)
This is land seized as a punishment for adultery.
As soon as the offence became known, the friends of the injured man
planted reeds (_sau_) on the land of the offender, or of his family, as
a token of forfeiture. Reeds so planted were called
_ai-wau-tu-i-vu-ni-vundi_ (the club set in the banana patch). The family
of the offender knew that they must either abandon the land or fight for
it, but when by lapse of time the offence was forgotten, the land could
be redeemed by _vakalutu_.
3. Veitumalelake (_Defending the dead_)
This was land given as a reward for defending the corpse of a fallen
warrior from being seized by the enemy. If the disgrace of being spoiled
of armour by the enemy led Hector to stake so much upon the rescue of
Sarpedon's body, so much the more deserving of reward was the same
action among the people who cooked and ate all bodies of fallen enemies.
4. Ai-thovi-ni-nkanka (_Reward for bravery_)
This was land given to allies or to persons conspicuous for their
bravery, for services in war. Land so given could be redeemed after a
lapse of time.
5. Veitau-ni-vanua (_Land given out of friendship_)
This was land given by one friend to another to bind their friendship,
but the tenure was temporary only, and the land was usually redeemed
after the death of either the donor or the transferee.
6. Ai-thuruthuru-ni-ngone (_The child's introduction_)
The child of a high chief was taken immediately after birth into the
houses of the inferior chiefs to be exhibited to them. Property of
various kinds was given to it, but if there were insufficient chattels
in the house, a plot of land was often formally presented. In such cases
the tenure was not absolute, and the land reverted after _vakalutu_ had
been performed.
All these cases amounted to little more than the transfer of the
usufruct of the land for life or for an uncertain period. The person
enjoying the usufruct had the right to all the crops and timber grown
upon the soil, but the fruit-trees remained the property of the donor.
He might improve the land or let it go to waste, and in this respect his
rights were superior to mere usufruct, but, as in the usufruct, he had
no power to transfer or even to sublet. The reason for this was obvious.
He would have been creating rights in the soil, which could not be
redeemed by the original donor by the ceremony of _vakalutu_ performed
to him alone. It is worth noting that all these systems of transfer,
though temporary, did not provide for the reversion of the land
spontaneously as at any given time. Unless the donors in their own
interest redeemed their property by the ceremony of _vakalutu_, the
transferees acquired an absolute title by prescription.
Under the following kinds of transfer land could never be redeemed--
1. Ai-sere-ni-wa-ni-kuna (_Loosening of the strangling cord_)
This was land given by the family of a dead man to the family of his
widow, who strangled herself in honour of her husband's memory. The
custom of strangling wives is closely interwoven with the ancient
beliefs regarding a future state. As has been explained already, the
widow who did not court the strangling cord was assumed to have been
unfaithful to her dead husband, and by following him along the path of
the Shades she saved his memory as well as her own from dishonour, and
her services thus deserved a recompense at the hands of his kinsmen.
[Page header: THE LOPPED FINGER]
Land given in this form of transfer could never be redeemed. But it
must be remembered that the transferees belonged to a tribe very closely
connected by the ties of marriage and vasu with the donors, and that
land was therefore virtually a transfer within the limits of the tribe.
2. Ai-sere-i-soli-ni-mate (_The unrolling of the shroud_) and
3. Tholambuka (_Carrying firewood_)
Under these two customs, the relations of a sick man brought a bale of
native cloth in which to wrap his body when dead, or firewood with which
to cook his food when too ill to go and get it for himself, and the
dying man, unable to make other return, presented them with a piece of
land. Land so transferred was never redeemed, but in these cases again
it is to be remembered that it was a transfer within the limits of the
tribe.
4. Mundulinga (_The lopped finger_)
One of the chief forms of mourning for the dead was to lop off the
little finger of one of the hands. Few of the older natives can be found
who have the fingers of both hands intact; most of them, indeed, have
lost both little fingers This act of mourning was confined to the
relations of the deceased, unless he was one of the highest chiefs, and
the transfer was therefore confined to the limits of the tribe. Like the
other customs connected with death, the transfer was irrevocable.
It is to be noticed, therefore, that the only irrevocable transfers were
confined to the limits of the tribe. Transfers from tribe to tribe could
be redeemed by the ceremony of _vakalutu_. It often happened, therefore,
that the male line of succession did not fail for several generations,
and in such cases the original circumstances were forgotten, and the
transfer became absolute by prescription. The ceremony of _vakalutu_ was
as follows: On a date agreed upon by both parties the original donors
came to the house of the transferee or his heir, and formally presented
him with a whale's tooth and perhaps a quantity of native goods in
addition, saying, "We have come to make the land (naming it) fall back
to us. Akesa ate from it and her children, but now she is dead, and they
are dead, and there are none of them left to eat from it. Therefore we
would have it fall back." If the representatives of the transferee
accepted the tooth, the redemption was complete, but if on the other
hand they refused to accept it, the question remained in abeyance until
one or other of the parties had brought it before a joint council of the
tribe. Under very exceptional circumstances it might even become a
_casus belli_, but as a rule the ground for refusal was, that the
property presented was inadequate. For in Fiji, as in Europe, land, like
all other commodities, has a commercial value estimable in chattels. The
ceremony of _vakalutu_ above described varied to some extent in
different districts. In Vatulele and Tailevu, for instance, the symbol
of transfer is a basket of earth, and the symbol of usufruct a leaf or a
bunch of plantains.
Leasehold (_Thokovaki_)
[Pageheader: HOW RENT AROSE]
These holdings were not necessarily farmed by the persons to whom they
were granted. There is throughout the Rewa province a remarkable custom
of subject tenure known as _thokovaki_. This tenure is sometimes
communal, sometimes individual. It is found throughout the Rewa delta
from the Nakelo to the sea, thus including a portion of Tailevu. In the
eastern end of Kandavu it reappears again in the form of rent paid by
tenants called _uraura-ni-vanua_. Properly to understand the system it
is necessary to glance at the history and political situation of the
Rewa people. After the arrival of the Nandoi people already referred to,
other tribes came down from the mountains into the delta. Principal
among these were the Kai Rewa proper. They settled at first at
Mburembasanga, where the land was naturally elevated above the mangrove
swamp. They were warriors descended from an older branch of the first
Melanesian immigrants, and they naturally signalized their coming by
preying upon the agricultural settlers below them. In this way they
imposed upon them the task of contributing to the feasts on ceremonial
occasions, and in course of time tradition has it that the Kai Nandoi
themselves invited them to cross the river and settle on their lands, so
as to spare them the irksome necessity of ferrying quantities of food
across the river. By this time there had been intermarriage between the
tribes, and land had been transferred to the new-comers under the form
of transfer described as dowry. They did not cross the river for
nothing. We find the Nandoi lands spread in a deferential semicircle
round the holdings of the chief families, showing that the former had
been despoiled of all their lands in the neighbourhood of the new
settlement. Then the usual process of aggression began. The chief family
was strong enough to protect fugitives, and fugitives came to them
accepting at once, in return for their lives, the status of kitchen men
(_adscripti glebae_). Thus probably the most servile form of _thokovaki_
originated. The chief also began to acquire holdings further afield.
Like his peers on the highlands of the island, he ordered his
newly-conquered vassals to plant him gardens on their own lands, and in
process of time as the crops of _taro_ and _via_ succeeded each other in
the same soil, the land came to be regarded as set aside for the chief,
and as claiming the expenditure of annual labour for the chief's
support. Succeeding generations did not stop to inquire how this came
about. They had to cultivate year by year a certain plot of land for the
chief, subject to their occupation. Another, perhaps the commonest,
origin of _thokovaki_ tenure is to be found in reclamation. The swamp
was valueless and belonged to every one, but as no stranger could be
allowed to settle upon it, the tribe, if they thought of it at all,
thought of it as their communal property. The chief had a lien upon the
labours of his vassals, provided that he paid them in food, and so it
came about that the chief was the author of most of the reclamation. Of
the land thus reclaimed he was regarded as overlord, and he could put
whom he would upon it as his tenant. We found one piece of land in the
very process of transition. A reach of soil near Mburembasanga was
reclaimed by order of the former Roko-tui-ndreketi, and planted
regularly by his vassals. In Mburembasanga there was a difference of
opinion whether this land was _thokovaki_, or whether it belonged to the
tenants in fee simple. The chief left the question to the tenants, and
they immediately chose to have it regarded as a subject tenure,
_thokovaki_. Another origin of _thokovaki_ may be found in the transfer
called _kete-ni-alewa_ (forfeiture for adultery). The chief seized the
land and allowed the former owners to cultivate it under a subject
tenure.
The small coastal islands, being unoccupied for agriculture, were also
regarded as the property of the chiefs. These are sometimes found to be
tenanted by vassals who tend the chief's pigs or gather his cocoanuts,
and this is in a sense _thokovaki_ tenure.
One of the most remarkable features about _thokovaki_ tenure is that the
tenants themselves disclaim the actual ownership of the land they
cultivate. The chiefs seldom know where their land is. Before the Native
Lands Commission the Roko Tui, or some other chief, often asked his
tenants for the names and boundaries of the lands over which he was
overlord, and if the tenant denied that a particular piece of land was
_thokovaki_ the chief asked the commissioners to accept the statement.
It happened more than once that tenants gave the name of land for
registration in their own name, saying, "We hold the land only on
_thokovaki_ tenancy, but the chief has favoured us and says that he will
make it over to us absolutely."
[Pageheader: RENT ALWAYS PAID IN PRODUCE]
It must not be understood that _thokovaki_ rents are paid only to the
superior chiefs. Persons of almost equal rank are found in the position
of overlord and tenant. In the case of Nalea and Nambuli the Kai Nalea
were the principal heathen chiefs before what I must call the
Reformation, and the fact of their being extensive lords of _thokovaki_
lands is an instance of the natural disposition of all ecclesiastical
bodies to acquire landed interests. I may add that the Reformation which
reduced Notho to unimportance occurred early in this century. The
assumptions of the priesthood had grown so intolerable that they
threatened the prestige of even the chiefs themselves. At last the
chiefs and people together determined to destroy the privileges of these
upstart priests who were originally people of no birth. They therefore
deprived them of their offices, and put in chiefs of rank in their
place. The success of this experiment of a state church was never put to
the proof, for Christianity came and swept away priests and gods alike.
Of the six great clans known as the Sauturanga we find that persons of
one are often in the relation of overlord to persons of another, though
they are of almost the same rank.
The rent paid under _thokovaki_ tenure was variously called
_ndrawe-ni-vanua_, _ura-ura-ni-vanua_, etc. It varied according to the
produce of the land itself. It might even take the form of manufactured
property, but with the inexactitude of all primitive people, neither the
amount nor the time for yielding it seems ever to have been fixed. Among
the fishing tribes on the coast, who might easily have paid their rent
in fish, we find that the fish is bartered first for produce and that
the produce is then carried to the landlord. We may therefore assume
that the rent must always in some sort be in the form of produce capable
of being grown upon the land. Thus sinnet is permitted, because the
fibre composing it may have been husked from cocoanuts growing on the
land; mats, because the land grows the rushes used in their manufacture;
baskets, because the osiers could be cut upon the land. The time for
paying rent was fixed by the necessities of the landlord. If he had a
feast to make or contribute to, he sent to his tenants, apportioning
among them the total amount he required of the supply. It might happen
that he made only one call upon them in a single year, while in another
he might demand more than half their crops. But the safeguard against
excessive demands lay in the fact that the tenant had always the power
of deserting the land and offering himself as a tenant to a rival chief.
In practice, therefore, no overlord dared to make excessive levies upon
his tenants.
[Pageheader: THE CRIME OF FISH-SCARING]
The most striking example of _thokovaki_ tenure is to be found in the
tribe of Notho. From the myths which concern the origin of this tribe,
we can gather that they are an offshoot of the tribe that now inhabits
the distant island of Nayau, with which it is _tauvu_, that is, it
worships the same gods and has a common ancestress. Tradition says that
their ancestress when bathing was swallowed by a gigantic shark and was
carried to the mangrove swamp where now stands the village of
Nambundrau, where she was ejected by the fish and attended by the
natives of the place. As a proof of this tradition the natives point to
the fact that their ancient god is a shark, but it is scarcely necessary
to observe that in this case, as in many others, the romantic history
has been woven round the totem of the tribe and incorporated into the
folklore. Seven generations ago, that is about 1750, the ancestor of the
present chief moved to Nambundrau. At that time the only dry ground was
a narrow island in the mangrove swamp. The chief was followed by the
septs related to his family, and by two tribes that were tributary to
him. They immediately began the work of reclamation, until year by year
the island grew. Causeways were put forward into the swamp surrounding
the moat so as to form fish-ponds. Sites were built for six other
villages, which formed the nucleus of reclamation, until at the present
day the whole area is composed of a network of causeways, gardens and
fish-ponds. For the first fifty years of this process the swamp was
regarded as exclusively the property of the chief. But as sufficient
villages were formed under the leadership of one of his relations the
swamp came to be looked upon as the property of the chief upon whose
lands it bordered. The property rights of the chief in the swamp were of
course of a negative order. He could only exercise them by refusing to
others the right to reclaim it; but as no reclamation could be
undertaken except under his directions, the land as it grew became the
property of the chiefs. In Notho alone in all Fiji do the overlords not
draw tribute from their own dependants, but gather it haphazard from
tenants not their hereditary subjects. As each reclamation was completed
the chief chose from his followers a tenant. The tenancy descended from
father to son, but at any moment the tenant was free to throw up his
holding and become the tenant of a chief more to his liking. The chief,
too, for sufficient cause, had a right of eviction, and might offer the
holding to any person of whatever sept, so long as he belonged to the
aggregation of tribes known as Notho. So much was this liberty
recognized, that now when a child is born in a family of tenants, the
father and mother choose to which of the chiefs he should become client.
Of a family of four boys the eldest would succeed his father in the
tenancy, but the other three would each become tenants of a different
chief. It will thus be seen that the _clientele_ of the minor chiefs
have no common tie of blood, and therefore the position of the overlord
approaches far more nearly that of the landlord in Europe than is
usually to be found in primitive communities.
The property of Notho consists of _taro_ beds, cocoanuts and fish-ponds,
and the rent therefore differs slightly from that paid in other
districts. There are, besides, special offences. It was a penal offence
to walk on a causeway bordering on another's fish-pond, and stamp on it
so as to make the fish jump out.
This offence was often committed for the purpose of theft, but sometimes
also out of pure mischief. These little fish are often given to the
landlord as rent for the pond from which they were drawn. It will thus
be seen that Notho cannot be said to be divided into _matankalis_. The
only way to describe their social status is to say that the villagers of
Nakuroiwai and Nathuru are all chiefs, and that the commoners in the
remaining four villages are apportioned out among these chiefs
individually, as tenants of their lands. The first-named villages own
all the land, and the others are mere agricultural tenants, removable at
will. But even in Notho, where the chief's rights in the soil most
nearly approach to the absolute, it may well be doubted whether he could
sell his lands to any European without violating the sense of justice of
the whole district.
Province of Tailevu
The tenures of land in Tailevu vary with the status of the tribe
occupying them. They may be classified as follows--
(1) Land which is admitted by the occupiers to be the absolute property
of the Mbau chiefs subject only to their occupation on the condition of
paying regular tribute in the form of _lala_ of food and labour.
Instances of this tenure are to be found in Kamba and Nambua. The people
do not claim any rights in the soil, but represent that they are only
occupying at the will of the chiefs, who have the absolute disposal of
it. They are subject to levies of food whenever a large feast is to be
made at Mbau, but they plant no special gardens for the chiefs, and they
are unstinted in the use of the cocoanuts and other fruit. The tribute
is called _drawe ni vanua_, perhaps the nearest equivalent for the word
"rent" that can be found in the language of any primitive people. The
people account for their position by stating that they formerly lived
with the chiefs as their servants, and that when the chiefs removed from
Kamba they were left upon the land to cultivate it under the present
conditions of tenure.
Roko Tui Tailevu asked that the land should be registered in the name of
the tenants subject to his rights as overlord.
(2) Land which is the joint property of the chiefs and their
tributaries, who both plant gardens for their superiors and pay regular
tribute in food to the chiefs to whom they are attached.
This form of tenure is to be found in the lands occupied by the people
of Namuka, Nakoroiwau and Natila. These tribes hold a peculiar position.
In former times they did not _tamaka_[108] any but the chief of the
Vusarandave, and at the death of a Vunivalu they alone could prepare the
body for burial. This may be accounted for by the tradition that they
originally formed part of the Tui Kamba family, and that they were left
behind to occupy the tribal lands when the Mbau chiefs moved to their
island.
[Pageheader: THE OVERLORD]
(3) Lands of which the occupiers, though _nkali_ (tributary), claim to
be the proprietors, acknowledging only the overlordship of the chief at
Mbau, to whom on that account they are subject to _lala_.
An instance of this tenure is to be found in Mokani. The people account
for the difference in their status from that of the other _nkali_ tribes
by saying that they were given their lands by the Ndravo people, to whom
they are related. In this case the land was registered in the name of
the people, endorsing the register with a statement of the usual tribute
due to the overlord.
It should here be noted that it is only in these cases that the
_turanga-i-taukei_, provided for in the Regulation of 1883 as the
recipient of forty per cent. of the rents for lease moneys, can be said
to exist, and as a measure of justice to the people, the Regulation
should be so amended as to allow ninety per cent. to be divided among
the people in all cases in which the Native Lands Commissioners certify
that there is no _turanga-i-taukei_ (overlord).
(4) Lands which are owned by the tribes independently of Mbau, and are
subject only to the overlordship of their own local chief.
Namata may be cited as an instance of this kind of tenure. The clan was
_mbati_ to Mbau, and therefore subject only to military service. As a
consequence the Mbau chiefs have no power to levy food or personal
service from Namata.
(5) Land of which the local chief claims to be the absolute owner.
The only instance we have found of this tenure is in Nakelo, which was a
very powerful tribe until the introduction of firearms by Charles Savage
about 1802-7 enabled Mbau to reduce it.
In spite, however, of the assertion of Tui Nakelo it is doubtful whether
the chief's rights could ever have been exercised without the assent of
his own tribe. In these days at any rate, they could not be so
exercised without shocking native opinion.
(6) Lands owned by the commune without the overlordship of any chief
either local or central.
Nausori and Kuku afford instances of this tenure. It is the natural
result of their geographical situation between the _mbati_(borders) of
two rival confederations, Mbau and Rewa--of being in fact a "buffer
state."
In these communes there is a difference between waste and cultivated
land. The _yavu_ (house foundation) is held by the individual and is
inherited by his heirs. The _teitei_ or _nkele_ (cleared and cultivated
land) is also regarded as the individual property of the occupier; the
waste lands are held in common, and may be appropriated, cleared and
cultivated by any member of the tribe with the consent of the rest. A
man thus owns individually neither more nor less than he can keep in
cultivation.
(7) Lands owned by a commune who have been fugitives from a distant part
of the country, and have been placed on their lands by the chiefs under
whose protection they have placed themselves. Until their position was
assured they paid tribute both to their protector and to any other
neighbouring chief strong enough to annoy them. An instance of this form
of tenure is to be found in the Kai Naimbosa, who came from the Vungalei
country, and for some time paid tribute both to the chiefs of Mbau and
Namata.
[Pageheader: RIGHTS OF FISHER TRIBES IGNORED]
Among all the coast tribes are to be found small communities of
fishermen, who by the nature of their occupation are debarred from
cultivating the soil. As might be expected, therefore, their tenure of
land is quite different from the tribes surrounding them. In Mbau there
are two of these tribes Lasakau and Soso; in the Rewa province the Kai
Naselai and the Kai Vutia. The Kai Soso claim all the shallow shore
reefs from Kamba Point to Uthui Kumi. They use fences only, a kind of
fishing that cannot be carried on unless the right of a reef is
exclusive. The Kai Lasakau are fishermen using both traps and nets, but
not fences. They claim the exclusive right to fish on all the deeper
reefs from Waikelia in Sawakasa to the Suva Point, including those near
Moturiki. There is a clear understanding between them and the Rewa
fishermen of Naselai and Vutia that they shall not interfere with the
shallow reefs on the Rewa coast. The members of this clan live almost
entirely by their skill. As soon as a man returns from the reef, his
wife takes the fish and hawks them from house to house, in exchange for
yams or _taro_. Failing to dispose of them in Mbau, she takes them to
the villages on the mainland. This system of barter has greatly taken
the place of the old system, under which the fishermen were fed by the
chiefs to whom they owed allegiance, that is, they were a continual tax
upon the chief's tenants. The Kai Soso have acquired a plot of land by
right of occupation, and their claim is not disputed. The Kai Naselai
used in return for their fish to be allowed the run of the plantations.
They would go and take whatever food they required, provided they
confined themselves to the gardens of those who had received fish from
them. Now, however, they have acquired land in right of occupation. The
Government here encounters another difficulty. At the cession all the
reefs were declared the property of the Crown, and unless the fishermen
were made a charge upon the lands registered as the property of the
natives they would have no means of subsistence. They must either be
given land belonging to other people, or the reefs belonging to the
Crown must be handed over to them. It is to be feared that the
Government will adopt a middle course, that of giving them a right to
fish upon the Crown reefs and withholding that right from others. But
this is a course that will inevitably lead to trouble in the future. If
rights are to be defined, now is the time to define them, before holders
have had time to acquire property by prescription.
Under the pressure of European land customs the Fijian conception of
land has begun to break up. Owning two-thirds of the land of their
islands, it was impossible that they should be left in useless
possession, and though they may not sell an acre of it they have been
encouraged to lease to planters at a fair rent all that they do not
require for their own support. As soon as they understood that they were
to have the spending of the rent, land, to which they had hitherto
attached little value, became their most precious possession, and their
natural earth-hunger was keenly whetted. In some instances the
proprietary unit had dwindled to a few individuals of low birth, and
these men, contrary to all custom, found themselves courted by powerful
neighbours on account of their wealth. This sudden acquisition of money
without effort has been demoralizing, but it has quickened the growth of
new tastes and new wants, which is the first step towards material
progress. On the other hand, it is fostering a spirit of lying and
cheating in every transaction concerned with the ownership of land.
Happily it has not led to one form of demoralization--that of
drinking--thanks to the rigid enforcement of the liquor law, which
forbids the sale of alcohol to natives under heavy penalties.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 106: The divisions of Tailevu and Rewa are--
(1) _Matanitu_--Tribe or Confederation.
(2) _Matankali_--Clan.
(3) _Tokatoka ni matankali_--Sept.
(4) _Mbatilovo_ (_lit._ "brink of the same pit-oven")--Joint-family.]
[Footnote 107: Williams's _Real Property_.]
[Footnote 108: Shout the cry of respect.]