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[75].
On Niué (Savage Island), “in fighting times the braves (toa) ignored all rights and seized upon any land that they were strong enough to hold”[76].
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[77].
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”[78]. 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”[79].
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”[80].
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[81].
Von Bülow states that in Samoa conquered lands become the private property of the victorious chief[82].
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.