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[113]. 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[114].
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[115].
Parkinson states that among the Moanus of the Admiralty Islands the power of the chiefs is considerable[116]. 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”[117]. [[341]]
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 régime 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[118]. 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[119]; 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”[120]. [[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[121].
There are some more details on record proving that labourers were not wanted.