[324] § 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". [Codrington, Soc. Reg., p. 306; see also Codrington, The Melanesians, pp. 59, 60.] 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". [Codrington, Soc. Reg., pp. 311, 312.]

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". [Somerville, New Georgia, p. 404.] 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. [Ribbe, p. 272.]

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. [Eibbe, p. 116.]

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 [325] 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". [Woodford, pp. 32, 33.]

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". [Inglis, p. 24.]

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 [326] 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. [Brainne, p. 241; Glaumont, p. 75; Lambert, pp. 82, 85; Meinicke, Die Inseln stillen Oceans, I p. 230; Rochas, pp. 245, 262.]

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 [327] may be required. How long soever their occupation may continue, it docs 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". [Williams, pp. 18, 22; Seemann, p. 233; Hale, p. 59; Fison, Land tenure in Fiji, pp. 336, 338, 343.] These emigrants are neither slaves nor serfs, but destitute of land; if there were free land fit for cullivation, 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 us private property as long as it is being cultivated. [Pfeil, p. 69; Hahl, p. 82; Parkinson, Dreissig Jahre, p. 158.]

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. [Sorge, in Steinmetz's Rechtsverhältnis.se, pp. 401, 422.]

lladdon, 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". [Haddon, p. 334.]

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, [328] if used for planting, a share in the first fruits would be paid to the owner". [Hunt, p.7.]

 

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.