Note 68 — Chapter IV · AGRICULTURAL TRIBES.

Williams, describing Fiji, speaks of a feudal government; but he adds that the ancient divisions of landed property are much respected. Seemann states that the “real power of the state resides in the landholders or gentry”; and Hale tells us that the members of the lowest class “work for the chiefs and landholders and are supported by them.” The fullest account of land tenure in Fiji is given by Fison. The lands are of three kinds. “1. The Yavu or Town-lot; 2. The Qele, or Arable Land; and 3. the Veikau, or Forest.” “The town-lots and the arable lands are divided among the taukei (landowners), while the forest lands are held in common by them. Arable land also, which is not in actual use, is in some places common to a certain extent.” “The land is vested in—or, at any rate, is held by—certain joint tribal owners who have a common descent. These are called the Taukei ni vanua or owners of the land.… Not all the people are landowners.” Fison then speaks of some classes destitute of land, of whom it is not quite clear whether they are tenants or serfs. But the following statement of his clearly shows that all land has been appropriated: “In addition to the koro [villages] already mentioned, there are others inhabited by tribes who have either migrated from their own lands owing to disagreement with their kinsfolk, or have been driven thence by war. These emigrants beg land from a taukei tribe, and settle down upon it. They are not landowners where they are now living, but it does not follow that they are kaisi [base-born men, who are very much despised]. If they were taukei in their own land they cannot be placed on the level of the people without a father.” They pay “rent of produce and service.… Tribes such as these are tenants at will, and the land may be taken from them whenever it may be required. How long soever their occupation may continue, it does not establish a title. The descendants of the taukei can always resume the lands, upon giving formal notice, and presenting some property or other, which is called “the falling back of the soil”68. These emigrants are neither slaves nor serfs, but destitute of land; if there were free land fit for cultivation, they would appropriate it instead of becoming tenants at will.”