A NEW ZEALANDER’S WILL.
Under this title in a former publication[66] I gave a literal translation of a written communication which I received from the celebrated Wi Tamihana Tarapipipi of Matamata, as follows:—
“A certain man had a male child born to him, then another male child, and then another male child. He also had daughters. At last the father of this family being at the point of death, the sons and daughters and all the relations assembled to hear his last words, and to see him die. And the sons said to their father: ‘Let thy mouth speak, O father, that we may hear your will; for you have not long to live.’ Then the old man turned towards his younger brothers, and spoke thus:—
‘Hereafter, O my brothers, be kind to my children. My cultivations are for my sons. Such and such a piece of land is for such and such a nephew. My eel-weirs, my potato gardens, my potatoes, my pigs, my male slaves, and my female slaves are for my sons only. My wives are for my younger brother.’
Such is the disposition of a man’s property; it relates only to his male children.”
From this it appears that the head of a family had a recognized right to dispose of his property among his male offspring and kinsmen, and that his will expressed shortly before his death in the presence of his family [pg 95] assembled for that purpose possessed all the solemnity of a legal document.
RAHI.
is the term applied to a tribe reduced to a dependant condition by a conquering tribe. The same authority says, “Hear the custom in regard to lands which are held by right of conquest, that is lands fallen to the brave (kua riro i te toa). Suppose some large tribe is defeated. Suppose that tribe is defeated a second and a third time, till at last the tribe becomes small, and is reduced to a mean condition. It is then made to do the work of dependants—to cultivate the land for food, to catch eels, and to carry wood. In short, its men are treated as slaves. In such a case their land passes into the possession of the tribe whose valour conquered them. They will not think of striving against their masters; because their power to fight has gone from them. They were not brave enough to hold possession of their land, and although they may grow numerous afterwards, they will not seek for a payment for their former losses; for they are fearful, and say among themselves, ‘Don’t let us strive with this tribe, lest we perish altogether, for it is a brave tribe.’ ”
William Thompson belonged to a victorious tribe; his sentiments therefore have a natural bias in favour of the sole right to the lands of the conquered tribe being with their conquerors. If, however, a member of the conquered tribe were to be consulted on this point, we should learn that he had not abandoned all idea of a right in the lands he had been allowed to retain, and was then occupying. Instances could be referred to where the conquered remnant of a tribe had regained power enough [pg 96] to re-possess themselves of the lands formerly their own; and in all cases where the conquerors have sold the lands of their tributaries the latter have resisted the right of the sellers to dispose thereof irrespectively of their own interests therein.