§ 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 [329] working class. [See Hunt, p. 107. In Tahiti there were also people destitute of land, of whom we shall have to speak in this paragraph.] 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". [Ellis, Pol. Res., I p. 107.]

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 [330] 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. [Ellis, Pol. Res., IV p. 414; Wilkes, IV p. 36; Remy, p. 155.]

On Niue (Savage Island), "in fighting times the braves (too) ignored all rights and seized upon any land that they were strong enough to hold". [Thomson, Savage Island, p. 143.]

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. [Jung, p. 67.]

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". [Hale, p. 102.] 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". [Waterhouse, p. 316; Williams, pp. 43, 54; Wilkes, III p. 85; Fison, Land tenure in Fiji, p. 343.]

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". [Ellis, Pol. Res., III pag. 360; Thomson, New-Zealand, p. 148.]

In New Caledonia the inhabitants of conquered districts have [331] to pay a tribute to the conqueror, but generally continue living under their own chiefs. [Rochas, p. 243.]

Von Bülow states that in Samoa conquered lands become the private property of the victorious chief. [Von Bülow, p. 193.]

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. [Williams, p. 29; Fison, 1. c, p. 345; see also Wilkes, III p. 98.]

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". [Ellis, Pol. Res., III p. 122.]

In Niue, widows and orphans "are frequently robbed of the land inherited from their dead husbands and fathers". [Thomson, Savage Island p. 143.]

In Ebon, confiscation of land by the chief was formerly a mode of punishment. [Thomson, Savage Island p. 322.]

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. [Kramer, Hawaii, etc., p. 334.]

On Nauru, according to Kramer, 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 quarelling parties and regarded it as their own. [Kramer, Hawaii, etc., p. 451; Kramer, Hawaii, etc., p. 334.] [332]

Among the Melanesians described by Codrington the chiefs "often use their power to drive away the owners of gardens they desire to occupy". [Codrington, Soc. Reg., p. 311.]

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 positon of the vanquished". [Gardiner, pp. 485, 470.] 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 Büllow, 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 personnally free and have the right to emigrate, but own no land. [Turner, Samoa,p. 173; Von Bülow, p. 194.] [333]

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". [Mariner, II p. 350.]

"The institutions of Niue seem always to have been republican" says B. Thomson. [Thomson, Savage Island, p. 138.]

In Samoa, in Turner's time, a democratic and even communistic regime 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". [Turner, Samoa, pp. 175, 171; Hale, p. 28.] 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 [334] 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". [Ellis, Pol. Res., Ill pp. 96-98; Wilkes, II p. 22.]

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 (korno 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 [335] occupants have exerted themselves to procure it, they remit the deficiency, and allow them to return". [Ellis, Pol. Res., IV pp. 413, 416, 417.] 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". [Wilkes, IV p. 37.]

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. [Waitz-Gerland, VI p. 199.]

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. [Radiguet, p. 156.] 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. [Radiguet, p. 319.]

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. [Tutuila, in Schurtz, Anfänge des Landbesitzes, p. 355.]

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. [Parkinson, Dreissig Jahre, p. 535.]

In New Zealand, as. has been shown in § 5, every freeman owned land. Accordingly, we find only a beginning of the [336] formation af a class of free labourers. Polack states that "the poorest classes work as freedmen on the farms of their richer relatives". [Polack, II p. 156.]

On Easter Island, the king formerly held a despotic sway over the common people, i. e. those who did not belong to the nobility. [Geiseler, p. 41.]

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. [Waitz-Gerland, VI p. 165.]

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 Kramer 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. [Steinbach, p. 297; Kramer, Hawaii, etc., pp. 430, 431.]

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 [337] 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. [Waitz-Gerland, V, 2, p. 121.]

In Yap, the lowest class (whom Graffe 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. [Waitz-Gerland, V, 2, p. 112.]

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 [338] 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. [Rochas, pp. 245, 246; Glaumont, pp. 74, 75; Brainne, p. 246; Lambert, pp. 79, 82, 83.] So it seems that the natives here are rather democratically organized.

In Fiji, according to Williams, the lower classes were [339] 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 (malanivanua);
  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". [Williams, pp. 23, 90, 157, 39, 40; Waterhouse, p. 311; Fison, Land tenure in Fiji, p. 342; Wilkes, III pp. 81,108; see above, pp. 91, 92.]

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". [Codrington, The Melanesians, pp. 21, 22.] 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". [340]

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. [Elton, p. 98.] 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. [Hagen and Pineau, p. 335; Turner, Samoa, pp. 315, 328; Ribbe,p. 138.] 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. [Hahl, p. 77.]

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. [Sorge, in Steinmetz's Rechtsverhältnisse, pp. 401, 414.]

Parkinson states that among the Moanus of the Admiralty Islands the power of the chiefs is considerable. [Parkinson, Dreissig Jahre, p. 396.] We do not, however, hear of a subjection of the common people by the upper classes.

Haddon, speaking of the Western Tribes of Torres Straits, says: "Each household is practically self-sufficient. So far as I could gather there was no division of labour as between man and man, every man made his garden, fished and fought". [Haddon, p. 342.] [344]

Hunt, in his description of the Murray Islands, makes no mention of social ranks.

Generally speaking, we may conclude that in Polynesia and Micronesia there are lower classes destitute of land and entirely at the mercy of the landholders, whereas in Melanesia such classes do not exist. This agrees with our former conclusion, that in the two first-named geographical districts all land has, or had been appropriated, which is not the case in Melanesia. And if we consider the single groups of islands, we find that wherever in Polynesia there is still free land (Samoa, New Zealand), a more or less democratic regime prevails, and where in Melanesia all land has been appropriated (Fiji) there is a subjected lower class. In the same sense, Moerenhout, speaking of Polynesia, remarks that, in the sparsely populated islands the chiefs had little power, but wherever there was a dense population, wars were frequent and the chiefs reigned despotically. [Moerenhout, II p. 223.] There are, as we have already remarked, a few exceptions to this general rule (Rotuma, Pelau); but in these cases it is quite possible that a subjected class formerly existed. For a great depopulation has taken place in Oceania, especially in Polynesia and Micronesia [See Gerland, Das Aussterben der Naturvölker, pp. 5, 6; and Mahler's essay, pp. 60, 61.]; and the value of land must have decreased together with the population. We have seen that in Rotuma all land is still held as property, but large tracts are out of tillage, though there are everywhere traces of former cultivation. In Pelau too, as has been said in § 6, the rights of property are still recognized, though there is but little land actually in cultivation. That the class of people destitute of land tends to disappear when the population decreases, is strikingly shown by the following statement of Ellis's regarding Tahiti: "Although the manahune [lowest class] have always included a large number of the inhabitants, they have not in modern times been so numerous as some other ranks. Since the population has been so greatly diminished, the means of subsistence so abundant, and such vast portions of the country uncultivated, an industrious individual has seldom experienced much difficulty in securing at least the occupancy of a piece of land". [Ellis, Pol. Res., III p. 96.] [342]

This depopulation may perhaps also account for the discrepancy between Semper's and Kubary's accounts of Pelau. Semper spoke of a despised working class; but Kubary, who wrote several years after, stated that there were no social ranks. It is quite possible that in the meantime the population had been so greatly diminished, that every one could obtain possession of a piece of land.

Ellis's above-quoted statement also shows that there is a fundamental difference between such lower classes as were found in Tahiti and slaves. The former were not at all forbidden to provide for themselves, and indeed, when the population had decreased, many of them began to cultivate a piece of land for their own profit. But in former times they were not able to do so, as all land was the property of the upper classes. The lower classes of Oceania were proletarians who wanted employment. The means of subsistence were the exclusive property of the upper classes, and therefore the poor were wholly dependent on them. In slave countries free labourers are not available, and therefore those who want labourers have recourse to slavery; in Oceania the labour market was overstocked, and therefore the poor eagerly asked the landlords for employment even in the meanest work. [One reason why these islanders wanted little labour may have been that they relied for a considerable portion of their food on the fruits of trees which, when once planted, required little care.]

There are some more details on record proving that labourers were not wanted.

In Rotuma "Polynesian or Micronesian strangers, fa helav, were usually married into different hoag, or adopted with the consent of all the members of the hoag. A few Fijians and Melanesians have become fa asoa, or helping men, of different chiefs; no women would have anything to do with them, and no hoag would adopt them. They remained on the island as long as they liked, and transferred their services as they liked; they were treated as inferior members of the hoag, to which they gave their services". [Gardiner, p. 486.] In a slave country these Melanesians, looked upon as an inferior race and therefore not adopted, would have been eagerly taken as slaves and prevented from escaping; but here it is quite the reverse: they [343] may stay if they like, but they may also go away if they like; nobody wants them.

What Hale tells us of the inhabitants of Ponape is also very remarkable. When it is feared that there will be overpopulation, some of the lower orders with their wives and children voluntarily go away in their canoes. [Hale, p. 85.] If these lower classes were slaves, they would not be allowed to emigrate; the masters would value them as their property and prevent them from escaping. Such is not the case here; they remove because there is no room for them.

We see that common labourers are little wanted in Oceania. Some kinds of workmen, however, are much in request in some of these islands.

Mariner states that in Tonga the esteem in which the different trades are held depends on their utility. Most people pursue the same trade as their fathers did before them, because they have learned it in their youth. This especially applies to those trades which are considered most difficult and. therefore highly honoured. There is no law obliging a son to follow his father's trade; but it is the custom; and the hope of a high profit stimulates the energy of those who pursue a difficult trade. The noblest trades are those of canoe-builder and undertaker of funerals. They are followed by none but mataboles and mooas (2nd and 3rd classes), the tooas (4th class) being excluded from them. All other trades are followed by mooas and tooas alike, except three which the mooas consider beneath their dignity and therefore leave to the tooas: those of barber, cook, and agriculturist. The latter two, the most depised trades, are hereditary. Neither cooking nor cultivating requires any particular capacities, everybody is capable of following these pursuits, and those whose fathers were engaged in either of them have no alternative but to continue in the same way. The esteem, however, in which an individual is held, does not only depend on the trade he follows, but on his ability in it. He who distinguishes himself in a lower trade enjoys more consideration than he who following a higher trade proves to be unqualified for it. [Mariner, II pp. 159-162.] [344]

We see that those trades which require no particular abilities are most despised here, whereas skilled labour is highly honoured and performed even by the higher classes.

In some more cases it is stated that skilled workmen are better paid and more highly valued than unskilled.

In Tahiti the lowest class included those "who were destitute of any land, and ignorant of the rude arts of carpentering, building, etc., which were respected among them . . . . The fishermen and artisans (sometimes ranking with this class, but more frequently with that immediately above it) may be said to have constituted the connecting link between the two". [Ellis, Pol. Res., III p. 96.]

Wilkes states that in the Kingsmill Islands "the trade of carpenter is held in great repute." Professed tattooers are also highly esteemed and well paid. [Wilkes, pp. 99, 108.]

In Fiji the carpenters formed a separate caste, called King's carpenters, having chiefs of their own, for whom and their work they showed respect. Among the social ranks the 4th were distinguished warriors of low birth, chiefs of the carpenters, and chiefs of the fishers for turtle, the 5th were the common people. [Williams, pp. 71, 32.] We see that here too skilled workmen rank above the bulk of the people.

Skilled labour is thus highly valued in some of these islands. The skilled workmen, so far from being slaves, are held in high esteem; but those who have no peculiar accomplishments are obliged to perform the rudest and most despised work. This applies especially to the agricultural labourers. These are entirely dependent on the landowners, and there are more of them than can be profitably employed. They much resemble the proletarians of modern European countries.

The great significance of the appropriation of the land clearly appears, when we consider a phenomenon frequently occurring among savages: debt-slavery. Among some savage tribes there are rich and poor as well as in Polynesia; the poor, however, do not apply to the rich for employment, but are enslaved by them. Thus among the Tagals and Visayas, in the time of the conquista, most slaves had become such by being unable to pay debts they had contracted. If, in a time of famine, a poor man [345] had been fed for some days by his rich neighbour, he became his slave. Sometimes the rich even placed a quantity of rice in some conspicuous place and lay on the look-out; if then a poor man came and ate of the rice, he was seized and enslaved. [Blumentritt, Conquista, pp. 56, 57.] Such a thing would never have happened in Polynesia, and the reason why is evident. Among the Tagals and Visayas the poor were able, in ordinary times, to provide for themselves they did not offer their services to the rich; the latter had to avail themselves of such an opportunity as a famine, to lay hands on them and compel them to work for them, not only during the famine, but afterwards when, if free, they would have been able to subsist independently of the rich. But in Polynesia the means of subsistence are permanently in the hands of the rich to the exclusion of the poor; therefore the rich need not compel the poor to work for them, for they are always at their mercy. Among the Tagals and Visayas the poor, though destitute of wealth, were not without resources: they had the free land always at their disposal; and it was only in extraordinary circumstances (e. g. when the harvest had failed) that they were temporarily dependent on the rich. In Polynesia the poor are destitute of land, and therefore permanently dependent on the landlords.

Their state would even be worse than it actually is, were it not that they are useful in another, non-economic way: they strengthen their employers' force in warfare.

In Tahiti "in times of war, all capable of bearing arms were called upon to join the forces of the chieftain to whom they belonged, and the farmers, who held their lands partly by feudal tenure, were obliged to render military service whenever their landlord required it. There were, besides these, a number of men celebrated for their valour, strength, or address in war, who were called aito, fighting-men or warriors. This title, the result of achievements in battle, was highly respected, and proportionably sought by the daring and ambitious. It was not, like the chieftainship and other prevailing distinctions, confined to any class, but open to all; and many from the lower ranks have risen, as warriors, to a high station in the community". [Ellis, Pol. Res., 1. p. 296.]

In Hawaii, "when war was declared, the king and warrior [346] chiefs, together with the priests, fixed the time and place for commencing, and the manner of carrying it on. In the meantime, the Runapai (messengers of war) were sent to the districts and villages under their authority, to require the services of their tenants, in numbers proportionate to the magnitude of the expedition". [Ellis, Pol. Res., IV p. 332.]

In Samoa, as we have seen, those residing on land belonging to the chief were obliged to stand by him in war and peace.

In Tonga, according to Mariner, "the retinue of the upper chiefs consists of mataboles or inferior chiefs (2nd class), and each of these has under his command a number of mooas (3rd class), who constitute the army of the upper chiefs. Some tooas (4th class) are also admitted into this army, if they have given proofs of bravery". [Mariner, II p. 349.]

In the Marquesas Islands the rank of a noble could be acquired through acts of bravery. [Radiguet p. 156.]

On the Kingsmill Islands the tenants must provide their lord with men when at war. [Radiguet p. 338.]

In Fiji, according to Williams, all men capable of bearing arms, of all classes, took part in military operations; and Fison, as we have seen above, states that the people of the lowest rank in war time had to fight for their lords to the death. [Williams, p. 45, and see above, p. 339.]

Concluding, we may remark that the facts observed in Oceania fully justify our theory, that slavery is inconsistent with a state of society in which all land is held as property.

Table of Contents -- Next