The native system of tenure was held to be of immemorial origin, and well known throughout Fiji. It was in accordance with Gordons policy of retaining indigenous institutions that this system should be expounded, recorded, and preserved. He therefore asked the Council of Chiefs, in 1876, to outline the traditionally recognised rights to land so that legislation could be framed to provide for a system of registration which would embody them.Tui Bua suggested that the best way to settle the matter for the future was to divide the land among the people individually, so that each man might plant for himself. This proposal was supported by Maafu, who was able to point out how well such a system worked in Lau, and the chiefs agreed that the Governor be asked to consult with Wilkinson on the matter. They proposed: Then let the land be divided among the occupants of it according to the families of the landholders, taking due consideration of each persons rank and position, whether they be Chiefs of the highest or minor rank, or the Chiefs of tribes, or the elders of families or landowners; and then let the land be divided in portions to the people individually, or in large blocks to families or tribes. The most commonly held view seems to have been that represented by the oft-quoted maxim of William Pritchard, first British Consul in Fiji and self-confessed expert in the customs of Pacific islanders: Every inch of land in Fiji has an owner. Every parcel or tract has a name, and the boundaries are defined and well-known. 59 Pritchard had propounded an obscure analysis of land tenure in which he variously located the right to alienate in different communal units of the people and in the chiefs who were their heads. Chiefs held - 20 the land, in Pritchards view, under precisely the same tenure as commoners. Their personal rights attained only to the lands of their families. The whole tribe retained an interest in the land held by the component families as the collective tribal support given to the chief depended on the extent of these lands. But the chief was head of the tribe and therefore “certain rights to the whole lands of the tribe appertain to him. The tribe is the family, and the chief is the head of the family.” 60 His conclusion on the matter of alienation was as follows: From this complicated tenure, it is clear that the alienation of land, however large or small the tract, can be made valid only by the collective act of the whole tribe, in the person of the ruling chief and the heads of the families. A memorandum on land tenure had been prepared by J. B. Thurston, who was probably the most influential authority on Fijian custom at the time of the Commissions enquiries. 62 According to Thurston the Fijian tribal system and the tenure of land were neither complicated nor of a novel character. From long and careful enquiry I am of the opinion that the people hold their lands from superior chiefs—that is to say, from their fathers or their gods—. . . under a system that has existed from time immemorial. The principles of this system recognise the supreme chief as the grantor of the land and leave the usufruct only (subject to certain conditions) in the hands of the grantee. Although this seemed to locate specifically the right to alienate land in the hands of the superior chiefs, the memorandum concluded with a qualification which made the matter obscure. Thurston claimed that, although the ruling chief had the right and the power (or he did not rule) to remove subject people from the land they occupied, such action would be regarded as unjust if there had been no failure on the part of the subject people to perform the services required of them at custom.There was some sort of reciprocal obligation, Thurston held, between chiefs and people, which gave both rights in the land: the subordinate chiefs and the commoners had no right to alienate the land which they occupied without the consent of the ruling chief, who possessed the most important rights in the land and whose position would be seriously affected by its loss; on the other hand, the ruling chief could not alienate land without the consent of the occupants so long as they rendered “the services - demanded by their chief, and sanctioned by immemorial usage and custom.” Since Thurston expressed no view as to which of the many services paid by commoners to their chiefs were so essential to the weal-public that their omission would constitute just grounds for eviction, this statement of tenure did not ease the task of the Commission.
Posted on: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:06:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015