|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Fiji |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Civil Action No: HBC 116 of 1999S
BETWEEN
RATU EPELI KANAKANA & OTHERS
& NATIVE LAND TRUST BOARD
Plaintiffs
AND
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FIJI
1st Defendant
AND
NATIVE LANDS COMMISSION
2nd Defendant
FINAL JUDGMENT
Judgment of: Inoke J.
Counsel Appearing: Mr K Vuataki for the Plaintiffs.
Ms I Fifita for the NLTB.
Mr R Green and Mr G Bai for the 1st Defendant.
Solicitors: Vuataki Law for the Plaintiffs.
In-house solicitors for the NLTB.
Attorney Generals Chambers for the 1st Defendant.
Dates of Hearing: 7 days in October - November 2006, 6 days in January –March 2007, 30 April 2007, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26 and 27 July 2010.
Date of Judgment: 22 December 2010
INTRODUCTION
[1] The Fiji Islands consists of 300 scattered islands dominated by two larger islands, Viti Levu and Vanua Levu which have an area of 4,011 and 2,137 square miles, respectively. The remaining 1,000 square miles is made up of the larger single islands of Ovalau, Kadavu, Taveuni and Koro and the smaller islands of Yasawa, Lomaiviti, Moala and Lau groups[1].
[2] The Plaintiffs are the descendants of the indigenous Fijians that originally owned and occupied the whole of the Suva peninsula which now comprises the City of Suva and its suburbs. This is their claim for compensation and other relief in respect of their lands which they say were taken and held unlawfully by the British Crown. The State is now being sued as its successor.
[3] The Suva lands are in the largest island of Viti Levu. The area in question is about 27,000 acres.
[4] It is Fiji's equivalent of the Mabo[2] case of Australia in which the indigenous inhabitants of the island of Mer in the Torres Straits sued the Queensland Government for recognition of their rights as owners.
DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATIONS OF LAND TENURE
[5] The following definitions and explanations are taken from the Native Land Trust Board publication of 1997[3]. In Fiji there are three forms of land tenure: Freehold land, State land and Native land. Freehold land is land owned in fee simple. State land, as the name suggests, is land owned by the State, previously the Crown. Hence, such land is sometimes referred to as Crown land. And Native land which is land beneficially owned by the indigenous people of the Fiji Islands but held in trust by a statutory trustee, the Native Land Trust Board ("NLTB").
[6] About 83% of the lands in these islands are Native land, 9% State land and the rest (8%) Freehold.
[7] Native land is not owned by an individual but rather by the communal unit, the basic of which is the Mataqali (clan). The customary landowning unit originated from a well established network of Fijian communal units, so closely related they can trace their origin to one source. The largest of these communal units is the Yavusa (tribe). A Yavusa consists of direct male descendants of a single Kalou Vu (ancestral god) and every Yavusa traces its origin in this way. The sons of the original founder established separate Mataqali. The head of the Yavusa is the Turaga ni Yavusa. The first family of sons in each Mataqali formed the various Tokatoka (family units).
[8] The Yavusa was in a great majority of cases a collection of related and cognate families joined together for the purpose of defence. Similarly, several Yavusa united for mutual protection under a selected chief. Such a confederation became known as Vanua. Further confederation of Vanua united under one chief formed a Matanitu.
[9] According to the Plaintiffs, the claim area was originally settled by three Yavusa and their constituent Mataqali: Yavusa Vatuwaqa, Yavusa Nauluvatu, Yavusa Nayavumata, Mataqali Vunimocelolo, Mataqali Qiomila, Mataqali Nayavumata, Mataqali Naceva, Mataqali Vuniwi, Mataqali Boutaci, Mataqali Nasau and Mataqali Daunivuwai.
THE PARTIES
[10] The first named Plaintiff, Ratu Epeli Kanakana, held the chiefly title of Tui Suva and the Turaga ni Yavusa Vatuwaqa. The other ten Plaintiffs are the heads of the other two Yavusa and their constituent Mataqali that owned the claim area. The Statement of Claim pleads that they are suing "for their common interest, grievance and remedy in hereditary title and interests to the 'claim area'". In this judgment I will refer to the Plaintiffs as including their ancestors in the appropriate context.
[11] The First Defendant is being sued as the representative of the State. The Native Land Commission ("NLC") is a statutory body established under the Native Lands Act which decides and registers Native land ownership.
[12] In the course of oral submissions, it became apparent that the NLTB was more than just an interested party. Rather than delay the hearing further, I exercised my discretion under Order 15 rule 6 of the High Court Rules 1988 and directed that the NLTB be joined as the 12th Plaintiff.
CASE HISTORY
[13] This case was heard by another Judge over 7 days in October - November 2006, 6 days in January – March 2007 and on 30 April 2007. Because of illness and retirement His Lordship was not able to deliver the judgment. The task of completing the case then fell on me which I willingly and humbly accepted.
[14] With the consent of counsel for the parties, rather than having a hearing de novo, I heard oral submissions on 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26 and 27 July 2010 and reserved my judgment which I now deliver based on the trial transcript, pleadings, exhibits, written and oral submissions.
[15] Twenty two witnesses were called by the Plaintiff and four by the Defendants. Voluminous statements and documents were tendered into evidence and substantive submissions were filed by counsel.
[16] I also acknowledge and commend the tremendous effort put in by Mr Vuataki counsel for the Plaintiffs, Mr Banuve who was initial counsel for the State and more recently Mr Green and Mr Bai for their assistance in clarifying their respective cases, and the attendance of Ms Fifita counsel for the NLTB.
THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM
[17] The original Statement of Claim was filed in 1999. It was amended in 2006 by leave. It consists of 15 pages. I must confess to having some difficulty ascertaining precisely the bases of the claim. It is not a criticism of the drafter of the document. I think it is the nature of the claim that has given rise to the lack of precision. As Mr Vuataki submitted, there has never been hitherto a claim such as this.
[18] I quote from the first paragraph of his written submissions in which he summarised his clients' claim:
The Plaintiff Roko Tui Suva, Turaga ni Yavusas and Turaga ni Mataqalis sue on their own behalf and in their respective roles and on behalf of their constituent units and members for their common interest, grievance and remedy in the claim area. The specific interest is their hereditary interest in the native titles owned by their forefathers before the advent of Europeans into the claim area. The grievance is that they no longer occupy such area nor receive adequate compensation for their loss. In remedy they seek compensation for their losses and return of such lands in the hands of Government which can be returned where possible.
The Claim Area
[19] The claim area (which I sometimes refer to in this judgment as the "Suva lands") is described as the "Suva peninsula lands commencing at the junction of the Tamavua river and creek and at the creek "Tuara or Qaqara" thence ascending this latter to its course on the hill "Na Ului Roko Leka" thence to the hilltop Namadai thence descending to the junction "Waisomo" and "Waiqariti" thence downstream to the junction of creek Nabuni and Wai ko Nasamabula thence down this latter to the sea thence around the sea coast past European town of Suva to the mouth of the Tamavua river and the point of commencement as described by Carew and lands of Yavusa Nayavumata included in the Polynesian company map above the Carew bound and bordering with Tamavua native lands."
[20] This description of the claim area is not in dispute. The Statement of Claim had attached to it two maps. Map 1 showed the whole of the claim area as described above. The second map denoted as Map 3 showed the different types of land holdings in the claim area. The areas coloured in yellow were Native land in reserve. The areas in green were those in respect of which claims were disallowed by the Land Claims Commissions of 1875 and 1921. The pink areas were Crown grants. The whole of the claim area was thus made up of three general areas (1) a Native reserve, (2) areas which became Crown lands because settlers' claims were disallowed as non bona fide, and (3) areas which were issued as Crown grants in fee simple because they were bona fide claims by settlers.
[21] The Plaintiffs claim that Yavusa Nauluvatu from time immemorial exclusively occupied and owned Native land known as Nauluvatu in the claim area as a village fortress and continues to lay claim thereto by virtue of "traditional connection and hereditary title and interest". Yavusa Vatuwaqa similarly lays claim to the land known as Delainacovu or Vatuwaqa hill otherwise known as Flagstaff hill and Yavusa Nayavumata lays claim to the area to the North of the Suva peninsula bordering with Tamavua native lands. The three Yavusa also lay claim to land in the claim area known as Korobaba and Naiqasiqasi as a village fortress called Suva. They claim that from time immemorial they have exclusively occupied and owned the claim area for village purposes, fortresses, gardening and other uses with boundaries ascertainable as between themselves. They continue to lay claim thereto by virtue of traditional connection and hereditary title and interest. They enjoyed the exclusive right to gather fish and other marine life in mangrove swamps in or about their lands and the surrounding sea and the reefs. Such rights, titles and interests in lands were established fact as at 10 October 1874 when sovereignty and radical title over the claim area were ceded to Her Majesty Queen Victoria and Her Successors. Their Native titles were entail in nature, inalienable with the tail being hereditary and inextinguishable except by extinguishment of the landowning unit by war or natural causes.
[22] Doing the best I can I summarise the bases of claim in the following paragraphs.
First Basis of Claim – Native title not extinguished by sale
[23] The Plaintiffs allege that because of the nature of Fijian Native title, the sale of any part or the whole of the Suva lands by their chiefs did not extinguish Native title. These sales were: (1) two blocks to Swanston and Pickering on 5 May 1860 by Tui Suva, Donu and Rkoktuku, (2) one block in Muanikau to Reverend Waterhouse on 7 November 1860 by Tui Suva, Kovianatawake, Ligasili and Rokonoevale, and (3) 27,000 acres by to the Polynesia Company Limited on 13 July 1868 by Ratu Seru Cakobau.
[24] The Plaintiffs further say that their ancestral chiefs had no right to sell such lands.
Second Basis of Claim – Native title not extinguished by Deed of Cession
[25] The Plaintiffs allege that on 10 October 1874, the Chiefs of Fiji, trusting in
the justice and generosity of Her Majesty Queen Victoria and successors, ceded sovereignty ("lewa") and radical title over the claim area to Her Majesty Queen Victoria and successors but not the beneficial proprietorship of the
soil ("taukei ni qele"). The result was that the Deed of Cession did not extinguish Native title or the hereditary estates.
The Third Basis of Claim – Breach of Fiduciary Duty
[26] The Plaintiffs third basis of claim is that the Plaintiffs, through their chiefs, by trust and honour entrusted their sovereign right to the Crown, the State, as successors of the Crown, owed them a fiduciary duty to properly ascertain native title and protect their interests. The Plaintiffs allege that the State has breached its fiduciary obligations by engaging in unconscionable conduct amounting to equitable fraud. The Statement of Claim lists ten instances of breach and unconscionable fraud.
[27] In particular, the Plaintiffs say that the Crown breached its fiduciary duty by wrongly deciding that land claims were to be decided by Land Commissions rather than by a Court. They also say that the Crown wrongly acquired and sold land which had not been bona fide sales or given to the Crown by European settlers in that such lands should have been given back as Native land.
The Fourth Basis of Claim – Unlawful relocation and occupation
[28] The Statement of Claim further pleads that by reason of the above breaches the Plaintiffs were relocated to the village of Suvavou, which was land belonging to other native owners, and they lost occupancy of the claim area without surrender or extinguishment of their title. The Crown entered into occupation of the Government House area without the authority or consent of the Plaintiffs and trespassed on to the balance of the claim area by issuing Crown grants and leases, building road systems and public works and by converting the claim area into the capital of Fiji.
The Fifth Basis of Claim – Breach of State obligations
[29] The Plaintiffs' fifth basis of claim is that in pre-cession negotiations, His Excellency Sir Hercules Robinson promised on behalf of the Crown that native interests would be taken into account if they trusted in Her Majesty's generosity to do right by them, that sales of land would be fully investigated and equitably adjusted and that possession of lands ceded to Her Majesty was in the chiefly manner of giving to Her Majesty and Her Majesty returning such lands to them. The Plaintiffs claim that these were continuing obligations inherited by the State. The State owes a duty to the Plaintiffs to correct historical errors, to accord them their fundamental human rights and to return all State land to the Plaintiffs and to appoint a Native Lands Commission to ascertain the Plaintiffs' titles and boundaries in the claim area.
[30] In addition, the Plaintiffs say that the State should pay them compensation for the lands not returned to them and for their fishing grounds.
The Sixth Basis of Claim – Breach of Constitutional Rights
[31] The claim under the 1997 Constitution was abandoned and not pursued.
THE ORDERS SOUGHT BY THE PLAINTIFFS
[32] The Orders sought were set out in five pages and I set them out in full for completeness:
THE DEFENCE
[33] The Defendants filed a joint Defence. They say that the Plaintiffs claims are statute barred because they did not bring their claims to the Lands Claim Commission set up under the Lands Claim Ordinance No XXV of 1879. They also say that the interest of others and not just that of the native owners were to be taken into account. They deny they owed a fiduciary or any other duty to the Plaintiffs and further deny that the instances pleaded by the Plaintiffs amounted to breaches of obligations, unconscionable conduct or fraud. They also claim that the choice of forum for resolution of land ownership was a matter of policy and non-justiciable as it was a prerogative of the Colonial Government. The State further claims that it purchased over 300 acres of land in Narikoso near Lami where the Plaintiffs were relocated to and who are now registered as Native land owners so they should not be entitled to any compensation or other relief.
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
[34] On 24 February 2000, Mr Justice Byrne, as he then was, ruled that the Plaintiffs had a cause of action. On 20 October 2006, Mr Justice Pathik ruled that this Court had jurisdiction to hear the action. His Lordship also ruled that the claim is not statute barred by the Lands Claim Ordinance No XXV of 1879.
[35] Ratu Epeli Kanakana, the late Tui Suva, like Eddie Mabo unfortunately died before the conclusion of his case. The chiefly title has devolved to his younger brother subject to confirmation by the Native Land Commission. Mr Vuataki sought to have Ratu Epeli's name remain on the title to this action as in Mabo pursuant to O 15 r 8(2) of the High Court Rules 1988. I allowed the request because in respect of his representative claim the cause of action survived and devolved to the next title holder but in respect of Ratu Epeli's claim on his own behalf, his rights extinguished on his death.
[36] Mr Vuataki applied for leave to amend paragraph 9.1(a) of the Statement of Claim. Paragraph 9.1(a) states that the State owes the Plaintiffs a duty to correct historical errors and accord with the Plaintiffs fundamental rights under the provisions of the 1997 Constitution. Because such rights under the Constitution have been extinguished by the Constitution Revocation Decree[4], Mr Vuataki sought leave to substitute those rights with those rights granted under the State Acquisition of Lands Act [Cap 135]. Mr Green objected on the basis that the State has been prejudiced by the lateness of the application.
[37] I dismissed the objection and allowed the amendment because in my view the Plaintiffs' rights under the amendments were limited in comparison to those under the 1997 Constitution and no new issues were raised by the amendment. The State could not be said to have been surprised or disadvantaged or otherwise prejudiced.
[38] At the hearing of submissions, Mr Vuataki submitted that the translation of the Deed of Cession from Fijian into English was wrong. I think it was too late at that stage to allow fresh evidence to be called to prove the point.
MY APPROACH TO THE EVIDENCE
[39] How do I decide what took place 136 years ago? I think the proper approach is to give more weight to the evidence recorded in the documentation held in the State archives than to the evidence of the witnesses, including the expert evidence, for three reasons. Firstly, the archive documents are contemporaneous or written soon thereafter. Secondly, the expert evidence is the expert's interpretation of what is in those documents, a task which this Court, with the greatest of respect, can do equally just as well. Thirdly, a more complete picture is painted by these documents although I appreciate that some of the evidence may not be strictly admissible and may serve no other useful purpose than provide background information.
[40] I also put to counsel and they agreed that I should look at all or so much of the documentation as I saw fit and then make my own assessment.
[41] I have therefore quoted extensively from these documents. It may make this judgment a little more difficult to read but I think it is necessary that I do it so that the facts and the sources of information on which my findings are based are set out in the judgment.
FIJI BEFORE THE DEED OF CESSION
THE CAKOBAU DEBT
[42] It would be difficult to do justice in this case without an appreciation of the historical background and the significant events that led to the signing of the Deed of Cession on 10 October 1874 and the cession of the Fiji Islands to the British Crown.
[43] I start from the burning of the house of the American, John B Williams, on 4 July 1849. I take the evidence from the letter written by Captain Thomas C Dunn of the barque "Dragon" Salem, to the Editor of the New York Herald written on 2 November 1856 and published on 9 November 1856:
Having lately returned from a trading voyage to the Fiji Islands, my attention has been called to a communication, published in the columns of the "Herald" of the 16th February last, purporting to have been written at those Islands, and signed "David Stuart", giving a long list of massacres and crimes communicated by the natives against the whites residing there; and also charging the English Wesleyan Missionaries with being accessory to and instigating many of the atrocities so minutely detailed. Feeling assured that such a communication would never have found admission to the columns of your paper had you been aware of the errors it contained, I take this the earliest opportunity afforded me of replying to it, and of vindicating the character of a body of noble-minded and self-denying men. I have been engaged in trading among those Islands for the past ten years, and every white resident is well known to me. There is no person living there of that name. I am well assured in my own mind as to the identity of the writer. But since he has chosen to shield himself under a false signature it is not for me to publish his name.
... those persons whom your correspondent describes as "adventurers from Sydney seeking and accepting employment from the white residents as teachers for their children," came from London in 1834 as accredited missionaries from the London Wesleyan Missionary Society, which Society has continued to support and steadily increase their missionary establishments there. At the time of their arrival there were but four or five whites residing at the group, and they were living in the houses of native chiefs. There was scarcely any trade there ... and it is principally owing to the civilizing and Christianizing influences of the Wesleyan Missionaries for the space of twenty-two years that the present trade has grown up there, or that white persons have been able to resort there in such numbers as to call themselves a community.
I will now proceed to remark upon the style of investigation pursued by Commander Boutwell, in his recent examination of the claims of American citizens against the native chiefs, and which is so much lauded by your correspondent. Before doing this, it will be necessary to state some particulars regarding affairs at the Islands. For some time previous to Commander Boutwell's arrival there had been, as your correspondent states, a sort of civil war existing between the several chiefs of Fiji; but as the American public are probably very little interested in the contests of savages, I will confine myself to the recital of events in which the foreign white residents were concerned.
In 1849 the whites, to the number of about fifty, resided at the town of Levuka, upon the island of Ovalau, the chief of which, Tui Levuka, was upon friendly terms with Thakombau, one of the principal chiefs engaged in the war. Though not actually subject to Thakombau, Tui Levuka frequently assisted him in his wars, and was considered throughout the Islands as being one of his party. The whites, also very generally espoused the cause of Thakombau in opinion, although none of them took any active part in the war. The American Consul, John B. Williams, Esq., resided upon a small Island, called Nukulau, which, I believe, he had purchased from Ngarrengeo, a chief of Rewa, who was the principal chief opposed to Thakombau. Upon the 4th of July, 1849, while he was celebrating the day by firing cannon, the house of the Consul accidentally took fire, and was burned to the ground. During the progress of the fire, a crowd of natives collected, and indulged their thievish propensities by seizing and carrying off whatever they could lay their hands upon. In such a case it was, of course, impossible to say how much was stolen and how much destroyed by the fire. But as the natives were pretty expert in saving articles where there was such a prospect of their securing them for their own use, it is probable that a good deal was stolen. Soon after, in 1851, the United States ship "St. Mary's," Captain Magruder, visiting the Islands, Mr. Williams applied to that officer for compensation to be required of the chiefs, and handed in a schedule of goods stolen, amounting to 5,001 dollars 38 cents, (it seems singular that he could know the exact articles stolen, so as to charge such an exact account, even to the thirty-eight cents,) the truth of which, that officer not being able (as his time was limited) to satisfy himself concerning its accuracy, left in the hands of the Rev. Mr. Calvert, one of the Missionaries, and Mr. David Whippy, United States Vice-commercial Agent, requesting them to examine Mr. William's claim, and also several other small claims preferred by Mr. Williams against native chiefs on behalf of American citizens; to arbitrate upon the same, and to report to the commander of the next United States ship-of-war which should visit Fiji, and to the Secretary of State at Washington. Mr. Calvert accordingly wrote to Commander Boutwell, upon his arrival at Fiji, upon the subject. But as his report did not at all agree with the notions of Mr. Consul Williams, being rather unfavourable to the justice of his claim, he was very coolly informed by that gentleman that, -
"It was considered a piece of presumption for him to interfere in matters concerning American citizens or their interests, as he (Mr. Williams) and Commander Boutwell were fully competent to settle all such affairs without any of his assistance."
In 1853, a boat belonging to some of the white residents of Levuka was taken and robbed by the natives of a place called Malaki. The three men composing her crew escaped in their dingy, - a small boat, - came to Levuka, and reported the outrage. The whites, exasperated at the story, determined to punish the offenders. They accordingly organized an expedition, and, accompanied by the chief of the town where they resided, with a number of his native warriors, went to the place, which they captured and burned; and the native force which accompanied them killed a number of the people of the town, although no resistance was made. That the whites did right in this affair is unquestioned, as it was requisite for them to show the natives that they would not allow any of their number to be robbed with impunity. The people of the destroyed town were subject to the chief of an island called Viwa. They carried complaint to him of the destruction of their town by the whites; and it is asserted by the whites that he, the Viwa Chief, applied to Thakombau for permission to avenge himself by destroying Levuka. Although Thakombau positively denies all knowledge of the matter, rumours of the meditated burning of their town coming to the ears of the whites, they organized and kept a regular night-watch to guard against treachery. Notwithstanding this precaution, the town was fired in the night, and most of it reduced to ashes. As there was a native teacher belonging to the Viwa living in the two at the time, the exasperated whites at once fixed upon him as the incendiary, for no other reason, so far as I have been able to ascertain, than that, being a native of Viwa, he must have been ordered by his chief to set fire to the town. Although at no subsequent investigation could any reliable proof be adduced to fix the fact upon him, the impression becoming general among the whites that Thakombau had authorized the destruction of their town, the Chief Tui Levuka declared against him, and was joined by all the whites. They immediately constructed a few temporary dwellings, around which they built a fence, which they fortified with several pieces of cannon, against any anticipated attack of Thakombau. But he never went near them, although your correspondent states, that several ineffectual attempts were made to carry the town. He sent several peaceful messages, assuring them that he had nothing to do with the burning of their town; that he was very sorry for the occurrence; and that he would do all in his power to discover and punish the perpetrators of the outrage. All this I state as facts. Having had considerable property in the hands of an agent living in the town, which was all destroyed by the fire, I have taken considerable pains to investigate the matter with a view of demanding indemnity, if the destruction could be traced to any responsible party. But it is still shrouded in mystery; the native teacher and the Viwa Chief, who were charged with the act, having been killed a few days after by the mountain tribes of Ovalau.
It was right that Commander Boutwell should have endeavoured to examine into the matter, as considerable American property had been destroyed; but he should have done so in an impartial spirit, according to the instructions of Commodore Mervine, Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific squadron, by whom he was despatched upon this business. I quote from those instructions:- "You will not take it for granted that all the allegations against the supposed offenders are true, simply because claimants have filed their reports at the state department. In prosecuting the important duty entrusted to your management and discretion, sound policy dictates that a close and thorough examination, upon the strictest principles of justice, should be made into every case presented for adjustment."
To show how far these wise and equitable instructions of Commodore Mervine were carried out by Commander Boutwell, I will here insert some of the correspondence which passed between him and the native chiefs upon the subject. The first is a letter from Commander Boutwell, dated a few days after his arrival at the Islands, and addressed to Thakombau. I give it entire; -
"TO THAKOMBAU TUI VITI, or the PRESIDING CHIEF in his absence.
"I have been directed by the Government of the United States to visit the Fiji Islands in the United States ship 'John Adams,' for the purpose of inquiring into and redressing the wrongs which American citizens have received at your hands. The great Chief who has charged me with this mission presides over a country whose resources are inexhaustible, and whose power to punish her enemies are beyond the comprehension of those who have never visited her empire. It is charged against you, that you have caused American property to a very large amount, and valued at many thousands of dollars, to be taken from the island of Nukulau and other places, and appropriated to your own purpose and to that of your friends. You have treated the persons who came here in ships bearing the same flag that you now see floating over the 'John Adams' in a manner that will not be submitted to by the Government of the United States of America. You are, therefore, required to restore that, or its value, with interest, to ask pardon of my nation, and to promise to respect its flag for the future.
"E. B. BOUTWELL,
"Commanding U. S. Ship 'John Adams.'"
The following day, and before any answer to the above had been received, another letter in the following style was sent, accompanied with the appended agreement for the Chiefs of Bau to sign.
United States Ship, 'John Adams,' Levuka,
Ovalau, Sept. 27, 1855.
"I COMMANDER BOUTWELL do, on behalf of the Government of the United States of America, demand of the chief of Bau thirty thousand dollars, or that amount to be paid in fish, cocoa-nut oil, gum, pigs, and yams, within twelve months from this date; the money or its equivalent to be paid into the hands of John B. Williams, Esq., United States Commercial Agent at the Fiji Islands, and to be distributed in the following manner:- 15,000 dollars to John B. Williams, Esq., for the loss of property on the island of Namuka; 4,000 dollars to Messrs. Chamberlain and Co., of Salem for the loss of property at the burning of Levuka; 4,000 dollars to Mr. Whippy, United States Vice-Consul at Levuka, for the loss of his property at Ovalau; 1,500 dollars to Shattuck and M'Comber, each as compensation for the loss of their property, and for being clubbed by the natives of Namuka, at the time they robbed Mr. Williams of Sydney; and 1,000 dollars for the robbery of barque 'Elizabeth' at Totonga.
"As I have many claims on these and other islands to settle, and my time being limited, I must urge the authorities of Bau to act speedily, and not compel me to go after the so-called Tui Viti, or approach nearer Bau, as my powder is quick and my balls are round.
"E. B. BOUTWELL, Commander."
Appended to this was the following document:-
Bau, Sept. 28, 1855.
"We, the undersigned, chiefs of Bau, admit the justice of John B. Williams claim, as also that of the other American citizens, and promise on our part to pay the amount demanded by Commander Boutwell within twelve months from this date."
Thakombau, the principal chief of Bau, being absent from his town at the time the above letters were received, Yagodamu, the second chief, replied to the demand or Commander Boutwell, by the following humble remonstrance against the unjust proceeding.
"To E. B. BOUTWELL, Esq., commanding U. S. Ship 'John Adams.'
Bau, Sept. 29, 1855
SIR,
I BEG most respectfully to inform you that the claim now made on us by John B. Williams, Esq., is unjust; first, because we were not accessories in any degree whatever to the seizure of the property belonging to J. B. Williams, James H. Williams, and Messrs. Shattuck and M'Comber; secondly, because the place where these outrages were committed, the islands of Nukulau and Namuka, were not included in our dominions at the time, neither are they now. In proof of this we refer to the statements of Commodore Wilkes, of the United States Exploring Expedition, in 1840, and of every commander in the naval and merchant service who have visited these parts. We refer to the record of the inquiry lately instituted on board H. B. M. Ship 'Herald,' at which Mr. Whippy, United States Vice-Consul at Levuka, Ovalau, was present. We refer to those American citizens at Ovalau who are acquainted with the subject. Lastly, we refer to the claims which John B. Williams himself made on Phillips, the late chief of Rewa, and which that chief admitted, and engaged to discharge. With reference to the claim of Messrs. Chamberlain and Co., we can only inform you, that the burning of Levuka is still involved in mystery. We maintain that we were not accessories, and would again most respectfully refer to the evidence given on the subject by the whites on board the 'Herald.'
"I am, &c.
(Signed by a mark) "YAGODAMU.
"On behalf of himself and the other chiefs now present in Bau."
To this letter of Yagodamu, Commander Boutwell, who had been instructed by his Commander-in-Chief to "institute a close and thorough inquiry, upon the strictest principles of justice, into "every case presented for his adjustment," replies in the following unique specimen of quarter-deck judgment:-
"WHEN I made the demand on the chiefs of Bau for indemnity, I expected an acknowledgment of your indebtedness and willingness to pay, and not a letter of explanation. My officer had no authority from me to enter into any agreement with you or the head of your nation. I am satisfied of the guilt of Tui Viti, as the chief of Bau. I know that his influence prevented Phillips from paying Mr. Williams for his losses on Nukulau. I know that a whale's tooth was sent to Suva, from Bau, with orders to club Shattuck and M'Comber. I know that the Viwa people robbed Americans at Levuka, and that Bau sanctioned it; and I am satisfied in my own mind that the Native Teacher set fire to the town of Levuka, and that Tui Viti sanctioned it. The Chief, Tui Levuka, states that the Bau people robbed the whaleship 'Elizabeth,' at Ovalau. Mr. Williams and Mr. Whippy both testify to the same fact. I am well aware that there are other chiefs and their people guilty of having injured Americans; I will in time call them to account, but at present I am in pursuit of Bau or her principal chief. I have to request that you will write me no more letters, but forthwith pay the money, or give me ample security that it will be paid in twelve months. The brave never threaten, nor do the virtuous boast of their chastity. I therefore do not tell you of the consequences of a non-compliance with these requirements. I would, however, remind your teachers of ethics, that the golden rule is too often forgotten, and that the eleventh commandment has, by general consent, become binding on all those whose keep the other ten.
"I am, &c.
"E. B. BOUTWELL,
"Commander
"To Yagodamu, Chief."
From the above letter may be seen the manner in which Commander Boutwell commenced to carry out the instructions of Commodore Mervine, in which he is ordered "not to take for granted that all "the allegations against the supposed offenders are true," but to "make full inquiry, upon the "strictest principles of justice, into every case presented to him for adjustment." He arrives at the Islands, and is immediately waited upon by Mr. John B. Williams, United States Commercial Agent, one of the principal claimants for indemnity, and by several others, who also have claims upon the chiefs. These persons tell their own story. (And your correspondent, David Stuart, in his letter, gives us a pretty good idea what kind of a story that was.) Commander Boutwell, without inquiring into the truth of the charges from any but the avowed enemies of the Bau Chiefs, immediately becomes "assured in his own mind of the guilt of Thakombau," and without giving him any opportunity of defending himself, demands compensation to the amount of thirty thousand dollars – fifteen thousand of which is awarded "to John B. Williams Esq., for the loss of property on the island of Nukulau," when the original claim, as presented to Captain Magruder, two years after the fire, was only five thousand. The poor chiefs, not feeling quite so assured of their guilt, ventured to remonstrate against this summary proceeding, and to ask to be allowed opportunity to endeavour to justify themselves. But the gallant commander did not want any letters of explanation, but an "acknowledgment of their indebtedness and willingness to pay;" and though the "brave never threaten," yet he just intimates that his "balls are round, and his powder quick." He then goes on to say, "I know," "I know," "I know," this, that, and the other: and "I therefore request that you will write me no more letters, "but forthwith pay the money, or give me ample security that it will be paid in twelve months." In their extremity, the chiefs applied to the Wesleyan Missionaries to write to Commander Boutwell on their behalf; which they did, but were politely informed by that gentleman, that he could settle the matter without any of their assistance. At this juncture, another American ship of war, the "St. Mary's" Commander Bailey, arrived at Ovalau, to whom Mr. Calvert, the chairman of the Wesleyan Mission, addressed the following letter.
"SIR,
Viwa, Fiji, Oct. 9, 1855.
"I HAIL with great pleasure your arrival in Fiji, which I deem most opportune, as intricate affairs are now pending between Bau and J. B. Williams, Esq., United States Commercial Agent. Having been requested by G. A. Magruder, Esq., of the United States navy, to arbitrate, in connexion with Mr. Whippy, respecting claims said to be due to J. B. Williams, Esq., and also respecting the barque 'Elizabeth,' and after having with reluctance (after objecting to do it) undertaken to do what I could in the complicated affairs, I thought it right to report what had been done in the matter to E. B. Boutwell, Esq., Commanding United States ship 'John Adams.'
"To my letter I have received two replies: one from Mr. Williams, who complains that my interference is uncalled for, & c.
"A copy of my letter to Commander Boutwell, with the replies thereto, I enclose, begging you will peruse and consider the same, as I think it unfair that I should be represented to your Government as 'presumptuous,' after I had been requested to do what I have done by a naval officer in the United States service. Herewith I beg to enclose to you a copy of a letter addressed to the Honourable Secretary of State, United States of America, respecting a levy which Mr. Whippy and I, after due deliberation, in virtue of Commander Magruder's request, conjointly made, as being the only claim we could fairly make out for depredations on the property of the 'Elizabeth.'
"I forward this by the Rev. Joseph Waterhouse, who has had the honour to be the first missionary at Bau, and who has been the means of bringing about a great change on that island. He was at Bau, and who has been the means of bringing about a great change on that island. He was at Levuka at the time it was burnt; with reference to which I am shocked to find Commander Boutwell writes, - 'I am well assured in my own mind, that the native teacher set fire to the town.' This is indeed a most grave implication, and which I hope Mr. Waterhouse will have the opportunity of proving as without foundation.
"Hoping that these matters may now at length be fully investigated and properly settled, so that Fiji, after its wars, heathenism, and cannibalism, may begin afresh, on better principles, and become enlightened, honourable, and religious,
"I am, &c.
"JAMES CALVERT.
"To Commander Bailey,
"United States ship 'St. Mary's.'"
A letter was also addressed by John B. Williams, Esq., to Commander Bailey in the following style;-
"To COMMANDER BAILEY, commanding United States ship, 'St. Mary's.'
United States ship 'John Adams,' Oct. 6, 1855.
"SIR,
"THE United States ship 'John Adams,' Commander E. B. Boutwell, having arrived some weeks previous to yourself, and having made himself acquainted with the subjects of complaints of American citizens, and having made his demands on Bau and other places for indemnity, it may be safe to leave the affair in his hands, as they are now in a fair train for settlement. And in my opinion, any change in the demands or requirements made on them (the natives) by the commander of the 'John Adams,' might be injurious to American citizens.
"I have, &c.
"JOHN B. WILLIAMS,
"U. S. Commercial Agent."
Commander Boutwell, hearing that Mr. Calvert had written to Commander Bailey, and that the latter gentleman was displeased with his (Commander Boutwell's) summary mode of procedure, wrote to Commander Bailey, requesting him to remain in Fiji and settle the affair himself; to which Commander Bailey replied, that as he (Commander Boutwell) appeared to be pursuing a course involving a deviation from his instructions, he should have felt compelled to remain and settle it himself, were it not that Mr. Williams, the principal claimant, and also, as United States Commercial Agent, representative of the other American claimants, had expressed a decided preference for his (Boutwell's) adjustment. He therefore left it in his hands, with a caution as to his deviating in the slightest degree from his original instructions, and an express order "to afford the accused every "opportunity upon all formal occasions to appear in person, as well as by respectable counsel, "without regard to their nation or religion." This order from Bailey, Boutwell, as junior, was bound to obey, but he chose to obey it after his own fashion. He sent a notice to Thakombau to appear on board his ship, upon a certain day, to answer the charges preferred against him. He also notified the Rev. Joseph Waterhouse that he would be permitted to act as counsel for the accused, and appointed a board of arbitration, consisting of two of his own officers, who had already made up their minds, to decide upon the matter. On the day appointed, Mr. Waterhouse, with Thakombau, repaired on board, and was permitted to speak in his behalf; but he was treated with insult and contempt, and was not permitted to call in any witnesses as evidence against the allegations of John B. Williams. The board of arbitration therefore decided that all the claims were just, and Commander Boutwell added on fifteen thousand dollars more, on account, as he informed Mr. Waterhouse, "of the interference of Commander Bailey and the representations of the Rev. Mr. Calvert." The award now stood thus: "To John B. Williams, Esq., 18,331 dollars; Chamberlain and Co., 7,300 dollars; David Whippy, 6,000 dollars; owners of barque "Elizabeth," 1,000 dollars; owners of brig "Tim Pickering," 2,800 dollars; Thomas Ryder, 1,500 dollars; Wilkinson, Brothers, and Co., Sydney, 4,000 dollars; Messrs. Shattuck and M'Comber, 2,600 dollars.
Here, then, is the final decision of Commander Boutwell. The claim of John B. Williams, originally 5,000 dollars, has, through this beautiful system of investigation, grown to 18,331 dollars, upon what grounds we are not informed. Having arrived at this satisfactory conclusion, a paper was drawn up, which was called a treaty, and which Thakombau was compelled to sign – by which he agreed to discharge the sum in two years – under the heaviest threats if he refused to comply; and the "promise, on the arrival of a ship of war belonging to the American nation, to resign the government of Bau, and to go voluntarily on board that ship, and submit to any punishment which it may be the pleasure of the Commander to inflict." This was the prompt justice which your correspondent so much lauds. He says – "Omnipotence had heard our prayers, and Commander Boutwell was the chosen one to give us aid." In my opinion, David Stuart would be the one most largely benefitted, if the award of Commander Boutwell should be enforced by the American Government; but I cannot believe it will be. Our Government has always been just in its dealings with the Polynesian communities; and the partial, harsh, and unjust proceedings related above, will, I am persuaded, undergo a severe scrutiny at Washington. That there were claims which it was Commander Boutwell's duty to examine and enforce, was undoubted. The loss of 7,000 dollars of Messrs. Chamberlain and Co., of Salem, was real; it was property left by me in the hands of an agent at Levuka, on their account, which was all destroyed by the fire. Other Americans residing at the place lost their all. It is not at present clear by what chief's orders the place was fired. This was a question for Commander Boutwell to inquire into; but it would seem that Mr. John B. Williams took advantage of these real and just claims to introduce his original claim of 5,000 dollars, now, by some species of mercantile legerdemain, increase to 18,000 dollars; and crushing all fair inquiry, by endeavouring to blacken the characters of the Wesleyan Missionaries, whose truthful testimony, he feared, might defeat his deep-laid plans to get Commander Boutwell to enforce the whole amount against Thakombau, who for some years has been the object of his special enmity. That Commander Boutwell listened to his tales, and imbibed that prejudice they would so naturally engender, is but too evident from his subsequent proceedings.
Immediately upon returning to Bau from the "John Adams," where he had been compelled to sign the so-called treaty, acknowledging the justice of the claims, and promising to pay the 45,000 dollars in two years, Thakombau addressed the following protest to the United States Consul at Sydney, New South Wales, requesting it might be forwarded to the Government of the United States.
"Bau, Fiji, Oct. 29, 1855.
"I, THAKOMBAU, the Vunivalu of Bau, Fiji, do humbly make known my protest against the oppressive conduct of Captain Boutwell. I do hereby declare and make known to you, Sir, the United States Consul nearest Fiji, that I did not sign the treaty with Captain Boutwell of my own accord, but under the greatest fear. He threatened to take me away to America, and stamped on the floor right in my face, because I objected to give my signature, and then I was afraid and signed it. I make known that I now protest against that treaty, and declare it to be unrighteous, tyrannical, unwarrantable, and unworthy of the Government of America. It is not my deed.
"I also make known, Sir, that he told another chief that he would hang me; but there is nothing for which he should hang me. I besought him to investigate the charges made against me by the whites of Ovalau, but he refused.
"I beseech you, Sir, to inform the Government of the United States of America of these transactions. I am continually in fear lest this Captain kill me, whilst I am innocent. I had hoped that my profession of Christianity would have prevented such arbitrary conduct. I cannot believe that it will be sustained by the American authorities.
(Signed by a mark) "THAKOMBAU.
"WITNESSES – William Moore and Joseph Waterhouse, Wesleyan Missionaries."
Copies of the above protest, duly authenticated, have been forwarded by the United States Consul at Sydney to the authorities at Washington, and also to the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific squadron. There is, therefore, no doubt that the affair will undergo a more thorough and just investigation by the orders of the American Government.
I have here given a true account of the proceedings of Commander Boutwell in relation to these affairs, taken from authenticated copies of all correspondence that passed upon the subject, now in my possession. Your readers, no doubt, will be surprised, upon referring to the "Herald" of the 16th of February last, to find your correspondent, David Stuart, so highly applauding Commander Boutwell. He says, speaking of the action of preceding commanders, "this course has, however, been changed by Commander Boutwell; and the truly republican conduct of that officer and his praiseworthy resistance of all attempts to induce him to abandon his countrymen to the power of the English missionaries, has, it is well known here, incurred the manifest displeasure of the missionaries; but he has the consolation of knowing that he left us with the united and heartfelt thanks of our young islandic republic; and after the tedious and unpleasant ask he has accomplished he will return to a country and a people whose motto is 'Liberty and Justice,' and whose approbation will in this instance be no less deserving than just. It is to be hoped that the Government of the people whose motto is 'Liberty and Justice,'" will visit upon Commander Boutwell that censure and displeasure which his unjust and oppressive proceedings are so justly calculated to inspire.
Hoping that you will not fail to give the above an early insertion in your paper,
I am, Sir, yours, &c
THOMAS C. DUNN.
THE POLYNESIA COMPANY
[44] Despite King Cakobau's protest, the debt stood. That led to the next important event which was the taking over of the debt by the promoters of the Polynesia Company Limited, sometimes referred to as the "Polynesia Land Company" or the "Polynesia Company". A. M. Quanchi, in his Master's thesis, "This Glorious Company: The Polynesia Company in Melbourne and Fiji", Monash University 1977[5], described the company as follows.
[45] The company was registered in the Colony of Victoria in December 1868, its promoters and shareholders were involved in a brief but notorious attempt to reap quick profits by expanding Victorian commercial enterprise from the streets of Melbourne to the cotton fields of Fiji. The collapse of the cotton boom, and the difficulties encountered in securing title to the lands claimed by the company, brought about its eclipse, but because of a persistent and often self-righteous stand by several directors and shareholders, the company's story dragged on for two decades and it was not until the late 1880's that it finally passed into obscurity.
[46] The following despatches and correspondence[6] tell the story:
Acting Consul Thurston to Commodore Lambert.
(Extract)
British Consulate, Fiji, 1 June 1868
Sir,
I BEG to call your attention to the following matters:-
About the end of July last, a Mr. Brewer, of Melbourne, Victoria, visited Fiji; he represented himself as the agent of certain commercial men of that city, whose attention was directed to this group of islands.
I furnished Mr. Brewer, at his request, with a transcript of the last Return (in a tabulated form) of approximate imports and exports of Fiji. He visited this office once only during his stay in Levuka, and confined himself solely to commercial subjects.
Mr. Brewer had many interviews with the chairman of the Wesleyan Mission, Mr. William Moore, the result of which was a scheme to form a banking and maritime insurance company; this much of their intentions I learnt partly from report and partly from Mr. Moore.
After a short visit, Mr. Brewer returned to Victoria, to mature the plan, while Mr. Moore at once built a house in this port suitable for offices, and speculated largely in land.
My attention was next called to Mr. Brewer, by the reports in Melbourne newspapers, of a meeting held in that city, to consider the propriety of forming a company to trade with Fiji. The chairman of the Chamber of Commerce presided. The promoters of the scheme were Mr. Cairns, and Mr. Brewer. Lengthy communications relative to Fiji were read by Mr. Vandamme; they were in discordance with fact, and highly calculated to mislead the Colonial public.
Mr. Cairns spoke with the same prospective effect.
....
Mr. Brewer followed, and announced the principal feature of their scheme, viz., the liquidation of Thakombau's debt to the United States Government, and the acceptance by the Company of lands, &c. in security. He proceeded, by enlarging about the present and future or latent resources of the group, quoted this office as his authority in the former case, and stated the value of the present exports to be twice the real amount.
...
A resolution
A resolution to form a company was finally moved, but no one being found to second it, the meeting broke up. I may here remark that, so far from "approval." I never heard of Mr. Brewer's designs; had I been apprised of them, I should, for obvious reasons, have expressed my disapproval.
Conceiving I had heard the last of Mr. Brewer and his adventure, I dismissed the matter from my attention.
On the 22nd ult., being at Bureta (south side of Ovalau), I received a note from Mr. Moore, to which I at once replied. My reason for prompt action was that Thakombau was in Levuka, and the arrival of a large steamer with Mr. Brewer and a colleague on board, together with their connection with Mr. Moore, induced me to think that the opportunity of the chief's visit would not be lost by these persons, who seemed determined to press forward a scheme which would undoubtedly entail loss upon many too confiding persons in the neighbouring Colonies, and in the future probably be productive of inconvenience to her Majesty's Government.
Referring for a moment to the present American securities, certain islands in Bau territory, I beg, Sir, in part explanation of the steps I have taken, to submit to you that, if the United States Government sell these islands, I will place and keep the purchasers in possession. If this Victorian Company advance Thakombau 10,000∫. Sterling to liquidate his debt, accepting his securities, it will do so under the impression that Her Majesty's Government will, if requisite, press any future claims likely to arise from Thakombau's habit of ignoring contracts. With this conclusion I cannot, in view of the past history of Fiji, concur. It is simply transferring for a questionable consideration, the onus of an unpleasant procedure from American to British authority, amplified also by unprecedented conditions, containing the germs of trouble and dissension, fatal to the future peace and prosperity of this group of islands.
I now proceed to the transaction which took place on board the steamer "Albion" upon the 23rd, and my subsequent action in relation thereto, which I venture to hope will meet with your approval.
In accordance with my note to Mr. Moore, I walked into Levuka and arrived at my office at 10.30 o'clock a.m., expecting to meet Messrs. Brewer, Evans, and Moore, with the Chief Thakombau. My clerk, however, informed me the chief, with four missionaries, had gone on board the "Albion" at 10 o'clock. Under the impression that hoisting Her Majesty's colours would acquaint the above-named persons with my presence in this office, or that courtesy would suggest the propriety of awaiting my arrival to an appointment requested by themselves, I remained disengaged until 2 o'clock p.m., and then gave my attention to other subjects. At noon I was informed that Thakombau was being treated with unbounded hospitality, that he had partaken of a champagne breakfast, and the contents of which were known only to the parties thereto.
This information I found subsequently to be correct.
About 3 o'clock p.m. Thakombau came to my office, remained seated in silence for five minutes, and then left.
In my opinion the chief was unfit for business of any description. In consequence of the strange rumours which reached me, I proceeded, at 7.30 o'clock p.m., on board the "Albion" and discovered Thakombau had signed a document prepared and drawn up in Melbourne prior to the "Albion's" departure. This instrument vested Messrs. Brewer and Evans for the Company, with authority to rule and control all persons, native or foreign, within Thakombau's[7] dominions, to levy taxes, dues, and imposts, as the said Company might think fit, expedient, or proper, granted them a banking monopoly without limit of time, and many rights and privileges not in Thakombau's power to grant. In an annexed schedule Thakombau conveyed to them 200,000 acres of land, not an acre of which has he, in my opinion, any title to.
The original document, signed in blank by the chief, was handed me for perusal, together with a printed copy thereof, which I beg to enclose for your information.
In reply to a query, I declined at that time and place to give an opinion as to the worth of the document, but informed the delegates it was their duty to have submitted the document to me, prior to any negotiation with Thakombau affecting, as it appeared to me, the commercial interests of a great body of British subjects, both in and out of Fiji, whose capital and industry had called the present trade of the group into existence; also that it was utterly impossible for the chief to form, in two hours, anything more than a faint conception of the tenor and meaning of the document he had signed.
On the 25th I addressed a protest to Thakombau, and caused a copy to be posted at this office. I also served on Messrs. Brewer and Evans an injunction to stay further action pending your arrival in Fiji. I acquainted the United States Consul of these facts.
Having drawn, Sir, your notice to the manner in which Thakombau's signature was obtained, I proceed to the document itself.
Passing a portion of the premises, I notice the clause or obligation on the part of the Company to well and truly aid and assist in upholding and defending Thakombau's kingdom.
The meaning of this is, that the Company, having purchased the prerogative and power Thakombau may really enjoy, minus his responsibilities, is prepared to receive the chief's own statement as to the boundaries and limits of his kingdom, and, under the shadow of his name, to take it for themselves by any filibustering measures they may be able to command, or permitted to exercise. This design I learnt from the conversation on board the "Albion," and that the delegates have held out hopes, flattering to the restless ambition of Thakombau, is beyond doubt. I beg to refer you to a letter from the Rev. Mr. Horsley to me. This part of the Company's design is, I conceive, contrary to the Act of George 3, relating to the engagement of Her Majesty's subjects to serve in a foreign service, and the fitting out and equipping, in Her Majesty's dominions, vessels for warlike purposes, without her Majesty's permission.
Referring to the authority vested in the Company, to ordain and make all laws, and to establish courts, and to appoint judges, magistrates, and other officers to administer such laws, I beg to observe Thakombau has never enjoyed the right of jurisdiction in any degree over British or other subjects of European Powers. He cannot, therefore, delegate to other powers he never possessed. Consul Pritchard, in 1860, applied for and obtained similar powers, but received from Lord Russel a reprimand for so doing. Her Majesty's Commissioner to Fiji in 1860 – 61 distinctly states, Thakombau has no power to make other chiefs submit to his authority. In the present day, the natives of Viti Levu would not submit to the rule of Messrs. Brewer and Evans, and Thakombau dare not attempt to enforce it.
The schedule granting 200,000 acres of land is a document fraught with mischief if permitted to continue or recognised as valid. Thakombau does not own a rood of land within the described limits. It is occupied and owned, with small exception, by independent tribes now in arms against the chief of Bau.
Lavua river, north to the Waidina, is occupied by the important tribe of Namosi, saving such parcels of land as they have sold to British and other subjects; and I have no hesitation in stating this land, ere it can be held by any Europeans under title from Thakombau must become the theatre of war and bloodshed.
Thakombau's position in this respect is virtually the same as stated to his Grace the Duke of Newcastle to Colonel Smythe in 1861. Colonel Smythe says: "He (Thakombau) could not convey to Her Majesty 200,000 acres of land, as consideration for the payment of those claims for him, as he does not possess them; nor does he acknowledge to have offered more than his consent, that lands to this extent might be acquired by her Majesty's Government for public purposes in Fiji."
In conclusion, I beg to inform you Treaties with Thakombau were made some years ago, by France and America, copies of which I shall endeavour to lay before you. The British population of Fiji at the present time amounts approximately to 600 or 650 persons, and is increasing monthly.
Many British subjects have invested their labour and capital within the dominions of Thakombau in consequence of his promise to support and protect them, and preserve law and order within his territory. The laws of Bau were enacted in May 1867, and copies thereof forwarded to the British and American Consulates.
In order that British settlers in the territories of Thakombau may not have their interests prejudiced by his capricious acts, or by the endeavours of occasional adventurers to obtain privileges opposed equally to law and the spirit of the age, I beg to suggest the propriety of making with Thakombau a treaty of peace and commerce, to remain in force for two years, or such other time as may seem to you sufficient to enable me to submit in detail the present condition of Fiji to her Majesty's Government, and receive definite instructions.
I have, &c.
(signed) John B. Thurston
Commodore Lambert, C.B.,
Commanding the Australian Squadron
Commodore Lambert to Sir J. H. T. Manners Sutton
Her Majesty's Ship "Challenger," at Ovalau, Fiji, 14 July 1868.
Sir,
I HAVE the honour to transmit herewith, for your Excellency's perusal, copies of a correspondence on the subject of a Charter, a copy of which I enclose, brought by Messrs. J. L. Evans and W. H. Brewer from Melbourne, as delegates from a company about to be formed at that place, and executed under peculiar circumstances by Thakombau, Chief of Bau.
These gentlemen also brought a note from you to her Majesty's Consul at this place, which was never presented to him until after the Charter was signed.
Your Excellency will observe, from the correspondence, that these gentlemen received the Chief Thakombau, on board the steam-ship "Albion," at a little after 10 o'clock a.m., and at noon he had affixed his signature to a document handing over to the said delegates 200,000 acres of land,[8] the exclusive privilege of establishing banks throughout Fiji, making laws, fixing the rate of import and export duties, and conferring many other rights; making laws, fixing the rate of import and export duties, and conferring many other rights; all this being done without the knowledge of Her Majesty's Consul, who was not consulted in the matter, and who knew nothing of it until the document had been executed, when he immediately protested against the whole proceeding and issued an injunction to Messrs. Evans and Brewer to stay further action. I consider it an illegal and unwarrantable proceeding throughout, and therefore forward the correspondence to your Excellency in order that you may be in full possession of the facts, so that you may take such steps as seem to you advisable in the matter, with a view that, if irregular, means may be taken to prevent any such similar occurrence from the Colony under your Excellency's Government.
I may add, that although Messrs. Evans and Brewer seem to be fully aware that they have overstepped the bounds of regular procedure by their offering to expunge certain obnoxious clauses from the Charter, I only refer to the document which has been completed and executed by the various parties.
I have, &c.
(signed) Rowley Lambert,
Commodore and Senior Officer.
To his Excellency,
Sir J. H. T. Manners Sutton, K.C.B
Governor of Victoria.
P.S. – Since writing the above I have seen the Chief Thakombau, in the presence of her Britannic Majesty's Acting Consul, Captain Hope, of her Majesty's ship "Brisk," and the Rev. W. Moore, chairman of the Wesleyan Mission in these islands, who was the interpreter on the occasion of the chief affixing his signature to the Charter brought by Messrs. Evans and Brewer.
The chief declares that the substance conveyed to him by that Charter was, that these gentlemen had come prepared to relieve him from the debt now owing by him to the United States Government, provided he would grant them equivalent in land, and thought he was justified in signing that Charter when a missionary assisted these gentlemen by translating and approving of it.
The course pursued by the Rev. Mr. Moore seems highly reprehensible in the whole matter, for, by his own admission, he was aware that the Consul ought to have been made cognisant of the nature of the transaction that he was forwarding by interpreting. And further, after the protest of Her Majesty's Consul against any further action being taken in the matter, he again interprets for Messrs. Evans and Brewer at Bau, in a matter concerning the interests of the protested Charter, he having previously translated the said protest to Thakombau, who observed, "The Consul hates it."
I have also to observe that the copy of the Charter, to which Thakombau's name is attached, and sent to me by Mr. Evans, purporting to be "a true copy of the original," does not correspond with the original which I have seen, and the marginal notes in Enclosure No. 1, in Mr. Evan's letter to me, dated 8th July, were added subsequently to that document being executed.
R.L
I shall forward a copy of the whole of this correspondence to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty.
[47] The Protest issued to King Cakobau were in these terms:
Acting Consul Thurston to the King of Bau
| Sir, | | British Consulate, Fiji, 25 May 1868 |
Whereas Mr. J. Lavington Evans and Mr. W. H. O'H. Brewer, of Melbourne, Victoria, agents and delegates to you from a certain Company about to be formed for the liquidation of your debts to the United States Government, having presented to me for perusal a certain Charter, dated 23rd May instant, granted and delivered by you to them in their representative capacity:
And whereas the said Charter doth grant and confirm unto the said Company rights and privileges of the gravest importance to yourself, your native subjects, and to European settlers generally residing within your dominions:
And whereas the said Charter, with its contained rights, privileges, monopolies, &c., was signed and delivered hastily, without the careful deliberation such an important matter demanded:
And whereas 200,000 acres of land upon Viti Levu, having a frontage extending from Suva to the Lavua river, including both banks of the latter, and extending inland to the Waidini river, hath been granted and confirmed by you unto the said Company for ever:
And whereas the said included country in its entirety doth not now, or hath in times past been, subject to your authority and control, but is in most part the territory of independent tribes now in arms to prevent your invasion of the country:
And whereas the grant of this land is illegal by your Fijian laws and those of England, and would be certain to occasion serious complications between the agents of the said Company and the resident landowners:
And whereas the effect of the rights and power conferred by you upon the said Company for ever is to invest it with absolute and despotic control in your kingdom, enjoying the power and authority of your position, and leaving to you its responsibilities, with power to lock up your lands, absorb revenue, and enjoy interminably a perfect monopoly in all things relative to trade, commerce, and government, to the prejudice and ruin of every trader and settler residing in your dominions, and not being a shareholder in this said Company:
Now, therefore, I, John B. Thurston, Esq., Her Britannic Majesty's Acting Consul for Fiji and Tonga, in consideration of the premises, and by virtue of the authority in me vested for the protection and encouragement of British trade and commerce in Fiji and Tonga, hereby protest, and by these presents protest, against the said Charter, its grants, rights, privileges, and monopolies, premises, and habendum, and against all and every act or acts, matters, or things done, or about to be done, relating to the said Charter, pending the arrival in Fiji of Commodore Rowley Lambert, senior officer commanding Her Britannic Majesty's Australian squadron, who is expected about the end of June proximo. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my signature and official seal the day and date first beforementioned.
(signed) John B. Thurston.
To Ebenezer Thakombau, King of Bau,
&c. &c. &c.
[48] Commodore Goodenough and Consul Layard who were instructed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to inquire and report on the offer of cession also reported on this topic. Their Report[9] dated 13 April 1874 said:
49. We have nothing to add to the statements previously made to Her Majesty's Government, and published in England, on the subject of the claim of the United States against King Cakobau – a claim which was unfairly made and unfairly pressed, and which has led to speculations of a questionable character.
50. The Melbourne Association, called the Polynesia Land Company, has been put in possession of 90,000 acres of, not the best, but, generally speaking, fair land. It claims 110,000 acres more. A copy of a Charter from King Cakobau to the agents of the Company is enclosed, together with a resolution of the Cabinet.
It appears by published papers that the promoters of the scheme were fully warned by Mr Thurston, then Acting British Consul, of the inability of Cakobau to carry out the engagement which the entered into with them, and of the futility of his promises. It seems fair, however, that the subscribers of the L9,000, which was actually paid to Cakobau, should not lose, and that a Commission should settle, by arbitration, the amount of land to be handed over to complete what is due to the company. Very little of the land given to it is as yet occupied.
If about 20,000 acres of fair land were handed over in addition to that already held, we think that the actual subscribers would probably be fairly remunerated, though it is, we think, a matter on which only a duly qualified Commission should pronounce an opinion.
The whole of this matter, that is, the Polynesia Land Company, has been treated of in the Report of Colonel Smythe, in an excellent article on Fiji by Captain Hope, R. N., in "Blackwood's Magazine" for July, 1869, and in an Appendix to "Fiji and the Fijians," by the Rev. James Calvert, Wesleyan Missionary.
It is impossible that there can be a second opinion as to the injustice of the claim of citizens of the United States to the sum of L9,000 exacted from Cakobau.
[49] In Despatch No 12[10] to the Earl of Carnarvon dated 20 October 1874, Sir Hercules Robinson reported on the Company as follows:
IV Polynesian Land Company
13. The Charter to this Company was granted by Thakombau in 1868, and professed, in consideration of L9,000 paid in satisfaction of the American claims, to cede to the Company 200,000 acres of land in Viti Levu, Vanua Levu, and other parts of Fiji. In consideration of a further annual payment of $1,000 Thakombau promised to the Company a monopoly of Banking for 21 years, and perpetual exemption from taxation. The Company has received about 90,000 acres of land, and now claims the balance of 110,000 acres with the other rights and privileges specified in the Charter. I enclose a copy of a letter which since my arrival in Fiji I have received from the Manager of the Company. It must be borne in mind that when Thakombau executed the Charter he was only chief of Mbau, and he had no right or title whatever to cede or deal in any manner with 7/10th of the land proferred to be granted to the Company. Of this the Company appear to have been warned at every step by the British Consul and the Senior Naval Officer on the station, so that they entered into the speculation with their eyes open and at their own risk. Of the 90,000 acres which have nominally been handed over, about from 400 to 500 acres only, in Suva Bay, have been actually occupied and cultivated by the Company, and nearly the whole of the valuable portion of the remainder is in the occupation of natives, who could not be dispossessed and driven from their homes without great hardship and injustice. Indeed it is asserted that without Government support and protections the Company could not venture to take possession of the greater portion of the 90,000 acres which have nominally been surrendered to them.
14. I would recommend that this Charter should not in any way be recognised as valid by Her Majesty's Government, but that as the readiest mode of settling this claim, and with a view of preventing annoyance to the native occupiers, an offer should be made to the Company, without prejudice, to repay to them the L9,000 advanced to the American Government, and leaver them in possession of the 400 to 500 acres now in the occupation of the tenants of the Company in the Suva District, and actually under cultivation; the remainder of the 90,000 acres, and all further claims under the Charter, being surrendered to the Colonial Government.
[50] Quanchi wrote in his thesis[11]:
At the first General Meeting (of the Polynesia Company) the Board of Directors had been re-elected, but there was little upon which to base a judgment of their performance. The Directors in Melbourne could in fact only wait upon the progress of their agents in Fiji. Glenny, and then Cook, had travelled out to inspect the blocks and were confidently expected to forward the titles at any moment. The first instalment on the United States debt ($US 9,575) was paid and the Directors were confident of having the balance ($US 32,673) available by mid-1869. Brower, the United States Consul in Fiji reported to Washington that he expected full payment would be made, but added a note of caution that he was "not without some fears to the contrary".
.
... but by the next series of General Meetings, beginning in May 1870, the gloss had dulled. The third General Meeting was postponed twice before a quorum finally met on the 14th of May.
.
The Company was facing considerable difficulties. The titles for only three blocks had been obtained and the second share issue had not sold well. In order to meet the remaining United States debt payments the Company sold 100,000 acres of their (sic) land to a consortium of original shareholders and new purchasers (which was half of the promised 200,000 acres in 40 equal parcels of 2,500 acres for L250 each to 40 investors[12] approved on 29 April 1869 and completed a week later which included all the Viti Levu Bay and Beqa blocks and 10,000 acres in Suva). Cook informed the General Meeting that L8,875 had been immediately subscribed to the new offer and that the Company had conveyed to the new association the Viti Levu Bay and Beqa blocks and 10,000 acres at Suva.
.
... The second and third instalments had been paid and only the fourth remained. However, before the final $US10,670.78 was paid, the Directors wished to ensure that Cakobau would honor his obligations under the charter.
.
By late 1871 the settlers at Suva had been on their blocks nearly a year but were struggling against the difficulties posed by costs of clearing, troublesome labourers and poor soils. The newly formed Cakobau Government offered some hope of stability in the islands but the Directors were ignorant of the internal political situation and were dependent on a series of irregular letters from the Local Committee, Surplice, Butters and Forward after he arrived. The Directors could only maintain an optimistic front to an increasingly suspicious press, public and quorum of shareholders. The seven general meetings between October 1870 and April 1871 had done little to soothe the now disgruntled shareholders and twelve months were to pass before the next general meeting was called. With Forword in Fiji on six month undertaking to clear up the Company affairs, the Directors in Melbourne continued their Board Meetings but publicly the Company had been put into a state of suspension. After two years operation the Company appeared to be on the verge of collapse.
.
In Levuka, Thurston wrote to Hope that now the Company had paid the fourth instalment on the American debt, Cakobau had indeed rubbed his hands, smiling and saying, "Sa oti, Sa oti" (It's all over, It's all over...). At the general meetings this was not mentioned and from Fiji Butters gave no warning to the Directors that Cakobau's attitude had turned decidedly against the Company.
.
It had appeared in late 1872 when Forwood reported the promise of further land grants, that the Company's fortunes would rise again, but 1873 was to bring further frustration and for all practical purposes that year saw the demise of the Company as a functioning, active enterprise.
[51] The Crown did not recognise the Charters for two reasons[13]: "that not only are they necessarily rendered void by the effacement of the so called government which purported to grant them, but they are in some obvious respects contrary to those principles of policy which must prevail in a British Colony."
OFFER OF CESSION
[52] The Report[14] of Commodore Goodenough and Consul Layard of 13 April 1874 on the offer of cession was as follows:
Report of Commodore Goodenough and Mr. Consul Layard, on the Fiji Islands.
"Pearl," at Levuka, Fiji, April 13, 1874.
(Received June 10, 1874.)
My Lord,
IN the instructions issued to us by Lord Kimberley, desiring us to inquire and report on the offer of cession of the Fiji Islands to the British Crown, we are informed that four possible modes of action are open to Her Majesty's Government:-
(1) To invest the British Consul with magisterial powers over British subjects settled in the Fiji Islands;
(2) To recognize the Government which now exists in the islands, and which has already been dealt with a de facto Government;
(3) To establish a British Protectorate over the islands;
(4) The assumption by Her Majesty of territorial Sovereignty over the Islands, and, as a necessary sequence, the constitution within them of some form of Colonial Government.
2. The objections to the third mode, which had appeared so strong to Her Majesty's Government, we find to be even stronger than is suggested by our instructions. We have received evidence of the dislike with which it would be received by British residents, and we, therefore, do not suppose that your Lordship will wish us to dwell further upon it.
3. As, in our opinion, the only remaining alternative lies between the assumption by Her Majesty of territorial Sovereignty over the Islands and to invest the Consul with magisterial power over the British subjects settled here, we will at once proceed to consider the second mode of action suggested by our instructions, and to give your Lordship a sketch of the establishment of the present Government in these islands, from which we believe that your Lordship will conclude, with us, that it is very far indeed from being likely that any Government can be established here which is, in any sense, native or indigenous, or which could become tolerable to the native or white planter.
4. In order to reply to an objection which might be made that the Sandwich Islands and the Tongan Islands are examples which may be quoted of success in native Government, we may remark that, in each of these cases, a superior native Chief succeeded in establishing his supreme rule before the advent of any number of Europeans; in each case missionaries preceded the trader or planter, and were able to instil a considerable amount of self-respect and culture into the natives; and in neither case has there been so rapid and sudden an influx of foreigners, as in Fiji. In the Fiji Islands this great influx of settlers took place from and since the date of Colonel Smythe's report to her Majesty's Government. The fact of a hope of annexation to Great Britain; and the faithful account given by Dr. Seemann of the fertility of the islands, and their suitableness as a new area for cotton-planting, stimulated the immigration which followed.
5. Fiji was still at that time, and up to a much more recent date, without anyone head, as may be seen from Colonel Smythe's report, Mr. Thurston's correspondence on the Polynesian Land Question, 1868, and other documents. The Chief of Bau was, however, besides being the undoubted ruler over a large area, the most influential personage over the group generally, and so continued up to August 1871. Up to this time the white settlers generally, throughout the different districts, had sought to extend their own influence, and to maintain order, by preferring some local Chief before all others, and then enabling him by presents of arms or cloth, and other things, to extend his influence, so that he might be the judge of all native disputes brought before him, and also the medium through whom purchases of land might be made. They, of course, adhered to the Chiefs who were already the most powerful, by birth or by the issue of native wars, and Cakobau's power, among others, was greatly due to this influence.
6. One Chief alone was always an exception to this rule. Maafu, the Tongan whose antecedents have been reported to the Foreign Office, made a position for himself, assisted, it is true, by one or two Englishmen, who attached themselves directly to him. He was frequently stopped in his career by the influence of the British Consul, and but for this he would probably have been before now the principal Chief of Fiji.
7. From about 1865, various attempts were made at different parts of the group, under the influence of whites, to establish the first principles of Government; and Cakobau, Maafu, and one or two other Chiefs were assisted by English Secretaries – or, perhaps we should say instructed by English Secretaries – to draw up and issue Constitutions. Thus there were Constitutions of Bau of 1865 and 1867, Laws of Tovata of 1867, and others; the Secretaries to these Chiefs being, in nearly every case, respectable and, in some cases, able men. There were, however considerable districts beyond the boundaries of Bau or of the Tovata; and, as yet, no administration of justice had been attempted beyond the native magistracy of local Chiefs.
8. The feeling of the white population that it was absolutely necessary to erect some sort of central Government, under which Law Courts for the recovery of debt and repression of crime, could be constituted, now increased; and, in 1869, the native Chiefs seem to have been stimulated by the whites to send to Her Majesty's Consul petitions for British protection. Various associations of whites were made, which, in turn, tried to erect a Republican form of Government, and obtain annexation to the United States – without success; and the first actual concession of legislative powers to whites appears to have been the granting of a charter by Cakobau to the white residents of Levuka, to make improvement in the local settlement by enacting bye-laws for imposing fines, &c. It is dated 21st November, 1870. This, however, was altogether insufficient for the purposes of inaugurating what was wanted, namely, a Court of Law; and the first successful attempt at the formation of a General Government was made very shortly after.
9. At this time, Cakobau's direct sovereignty was limited to Bau, to part of Ovalau, great part of the Rewa, and several central islands. His influence extended westward to Ba River on the north, and to Suva on the south side of Viti Levu, far less, altogether, than half of Viti Levu, or a third of the group. It had appeared to be the interest of every one to uphold and extend that authority and influence; and both the claim of the United States for 9,000∫., and also the action of English authorities, had contributed to make him the principal Chief of Fiji.
10. As we have said, the whites, throughout the group, had been anxious for a General Government, but the merchants of Levuka, to whom many of the planters were in debt, were naturally the most eager for the establishment of Courts of Law; but the immediate cause of their proceeding to active measures was the fact that a new line of steamers was advertised to run from Australia to San Francisco, and that it was most desirable to induce them to call at Levuka on their way. Some of the principal merchants subscribed to light Levuka Harbour and to survey the northern entrance to the group, namely, the Nanuku passage. They were further desirous of securing to the Steamship Company a small subsidy, and were at once met by the difficulty that they had often met before, that the co-operation might be promised, for this or any other scheme, but could not be secured.
About this time, viz., May 1871, a Mr. Sydney Burt, who happened to have come here from Sydney, was Cakobau's Commercial Agent; a Mr. G. A. Woods formerly Colonial Surveyor in New Zealand, was employed in determining positions for placing a light for the navigation of the Nanuku passage; and a Mr. Drew was Cakobau's Secretary. The resident whites seem not to have understood how to set to work to constitute themselves into a Government, and seem to have combined with Mr. Woods and Mr. Burt to get Cakobau recognized as King of Fiji, and, under his authority, to form a Ministry of seven persons, comprising two native Chiefs, two principal merchants, Mr. Sagar, Mr. Woods, Mr. Burt.
11. These persons (for neither the Chief Cakobau nor other native understood anything about it) assembled the foreign residents in Levuka by notice, and there read a speech, purporting to be from Cakobau, who was present, and announcing the nomination of his Ministers and his intention to govern under a Constitution by their aid.
12. It is greatly to be regretted that the gentleman who occupied the post of Her Majesty's Consul at this time was not fitted, either by his knowledge of the islands or by a legitimate influence with the Chiefs to direct the course of affairs. The influence and authority, which should of right have been exerted by him at this moment, were not used to keep the Chiefs and the British residents from making great mistakes. Had Mr. March possessed that influence and authority, we believe he might, on the one hand, have given such advice to the Chief as would have insured his selecting trustworthy persons as Ministers; and, on the other hand, have induced all residents to give the support to the laws, now for the first time introduced, as would have insured their ready acceptance.
The mistake now made, and which has led to many subsequent ones, was that the whole public, native and foreign, were taken by surprise. A General Government was started without the general consent; and, consequently, although the whites in all parts of the group were induced, by their strong desire for a Government of some sort or other and by fair promises, to adhere at first to what was then started; yet both whites and natives have held themselves free to disown and oppose the Government so constituted whenever they thought fit, and to ask for its dissolution. But for the interference and influence of the house of Hennings in one direction, and that of Captain Chapman, of Her Majesty's ship "Dido," in another, there can be little doubt that both Maafu, Chief of Lau, and Tui Cakau, Chief of the northern part of the group, would have separated from the Government of Cakobau before this; and an organised resistance to the Government on the part of the planters of Ba, Nadi, and Nadroga (the west extreme of Viti Levu), might possibly have been successful, had it not been for Captain Chapman's intervention in February 1873.
13. There can be no doubt that the personal unpopularity of Mr. Woods, who made himself the leader of the Government movement, as well as an unnecessary and arbitrary assumption of authority by him, had something to do with the resistance offered to the Government; but the chief cause of distrust among the whites was the subsequent spectacle of an extravagant expenditure of money on an elaborate form of Constitutional Government, which sensible men felt to be unsuited to the country. There was, besides this, a residuum of ill disposed men at Levuka, who objected to all law, and who took advantage of the indifference of the respectable to make themselves prominent. These were a small fraction and entirely distinct from the body of planters and merchants who form the real bulk of the settlers.
14. This Government having, however, made good its start, proceeded to invite white delegates to consult with them, and also with the Chiefs, who were induced to come down and adhere to the General Government. The white residents consented and sent delegates, and it is clear, from what has followed, that the idea in their minds was that the Chiefs were to govern their own people, and that the whites were to invite the confidence of people abroad by showing themselves capable of self-government, by developing the resources of the country, and by showing that the administration of laws could be secured. Such a body of delegates as was here assembled could not be expected, on the one hand, to understand much of law or constitutions; or, on the other, to have any particular predisposition in favour of natives. Their main motive was, of course, to advance their own interests, and, in matters beyond their immediate interests, they were easily led to abandon the country to an active and energetic man like Mr. Woods.
15. The delegates framed a Constitution, and under the Constitution a Parliament was elected, and sat in 1872 and 1873. There was not, nor was there likely to be, any deliberate intention of injuring the natives, but it was, perhaps, inevitable that a body of men sent up to guard the interests of white constituents should ignore the existence of a native, except as a payer of poll-tax, a possible labourer and a consumer of imported goods. The interests of natives were undoubtedly ignored to this extent – that they were left to shift for themselves, and as, on account of the imposition of the poll-tax, they had a right to have been, but were not, protected from the old-fashioned irregular imposts of native Chiefs, they have suffered considerably by the inauguration of a new Government. Their chief sufferings seem to have arisen from the power of the Chiefs to force their people to labour, and also from the action of the Government in giving over prisoners of war to white planters to labour, in consideration of yearly contributions to the Treasury; but, perhaps, that which shows most clearly the evil of white domination, was an act of the Legislature of July 1872, which authorises the putting of Fijians to hard labour on conviction of non-payment of poll-tax; the hard labour being a service on the plantation of a white settler.
It is right to say that though this Act passed the House, it was objected to by some of the planters, who felt it to be a policy which would bring them into collision with the natives.
Under this Act, as well as under a regulation by which prisoners of war were hired out to planters, natives have been consigned to temporary slavery, and the spirit of the Imperial Kidnapping Act has been violated.
16. The body of self appointed Ministers continued in power up to March 1872, without giving satisfaction either to whites or natives; but now Mr. Thurston, who had been acting at one time as Her Majesty's Consul and had the confidence of all parties, was asked, in the absence of Mr. Woods at Sidney, to take the chief place in the Ministry. He consented, but on the return of Mr. Woods, that gentleman managed to retain his post as premier, to the great dissatisfaction of the white population.
17. To the continued want of frankness in financial matters on the part of the Ministers, which was, of course, and rightly, ascribed to their inability to produce a satisfactory account, was now added a series of mismanaged native affairs, which threatened to embroil the whites with the natives to a greater extent even than the whites, by occasional strong measures against trespassers and by disputable land transactions with native Chiefs, had embroiled themselves.
18. Still, Mr. Thurston's having taken office might have led to a better state of things, had it not been for Mr. Woods' continuance in the Ministry, and also, it must be said, the continued bad success of planters with their cotton plantations. With cotton at the high prices of 1868 and 1869, the majority of the people would have cared little how they were governed, or how much public debt was contracted.
Throughout the group more and more dissatisfaction was felt, and the dissatisfaction was met by defiance instead of by conciliation. Mr. Thurston seems to have been animated by the sincerest desire to maintain order and the administration of law, but seems to have insisted on making the theoretic unity of Cakobau's Kingdom (an unity which was only brought into existence by the good-will of the white planters), a foundation on which he sought to rest the exclusive right of Cakobau and his Ministers to govern in the interest of the native population. A parade of this theory was not likely to advance their practical interests or to gain the assistance of the whites. Although the theory might deserve to be regarded with sympathy, we cannot find that, in practice, the native policy since pursued has in any way contributed to the comfort or welfare of the natives, who have openly come to us, on our journey about the Coast, to complain of the impossibility of their living under the white Government.
19. The state in which we find the islands is then the following:-
A native Chief has been raised to supreme power by the white population. In working a constitution under him the latter have found themselves, as a matter of fact, the disposers of the interests of the natives. A ministry, which at first rested upon the support of the whites, has, by raising an armed force, felt it possible to make itself independent of them, and has sought to govern the country on the theory of preserving native interests and treating whites as aliens. In the course of two years they have spent about 124,000∫ and are 87,000∫ in debt.
The most respectable white merchants and planters have assured us of their inability to meet this debt unless an influx of capital takes place, the whole capital now invested in the country being about 250,000∫.
The Chiefs have been induced to assume the responsibility of the debt, but could not possibly meet it, and, we feel, do not understand their liability. In the attempt to meet it the people would be reduced to worse slavery than has ever been the case before.
20. This is the state to which the Government of the islands has now been brought, and we beg to reply in answer to the questions put to us by your Lordship under this head.
Q(1) To what extent is the actual Government acknowledged throughout the islands by either the natives or by the white settlers? – A. The present Government is acknowledged throughout the islands by the natives and whites; but that which we found on our arrival was only able to keep its position by the aid which it received from the presence of one of Her Majesty's ships. But for our influence at this moment, Maafu would probably separate himself from the Government and draw the Chief of Taveuni, Tui Cakau, with him.
Q(2) Whether the resistance which has recently been offered to it is grounded upon a belief that it is not properly constituted, and has no sufficient title to the power which it affects to exercise, or to an objection to the persons now constituting the administration, such as would be removed by the substitution of persons possessing in a greater degree the confidence of the inhabitants? – A. Resistance seems to have been offered to it at first both on account of objections to the persons assuming posts of ministers, namely, to Mr. Woods and Mr. Burt; and also on account of the way in which they assumed those posts; and latterly, on account of personal objections to Mr. Woods and Mr. Thurston, and their extravagance and arbitrary acts. We do not think that the objections to the last form of Government would be removed by the substitution of other persons, as the confidence of the settlers has been thoroughly shaken in all attempts at self-government, and we know of no persons in the impoverished state of the community, who are capable, by their true worthiness, knowledge, and independence, to undertake the posts of permanent and nominated ministers satisfactorily.
Q(3) Whether there is a reasonable prospect that a Government so constituted will possess stability, and will be able to preserve order and to punish crime? – A. There is no reasonable prospect that a native Government can continue to preserve order. It is, indeed, impossible for it to do so.
Q(4) What securities would the Fijian Government, if recognised, be prepared to give that slavery should not, in any form, directly or indirectly, exist in the islands; that kidnapping, whether carried on in ships under the Fijian flag or under other flags, should, as far as lay in their power, be effectually repressed; and that labourers imported from other islands should be humanely treated, and should only be employed in accordance with contracts freely entered into by them? – A. We have, however, asked King Cakobau's Ministers the questions to which your Lordship directed our attention. Though we have received no reply, we have no doubt whatever that an affirmative one would be given by the King and Chiefs.
21. Should Her Majesty's Government, however, determine on the continued recognition of a native Government here, assisted by white advisers, with a view to full recognition hereafter when it can justify its claim to such recognition, then we are of opinion that Her Majesty's Consul must, for the preservation of order, be furnished with discretionary power to exert magisterial authority, and to open a Court, for which the following staff would be required, - an Assistant Judge, a Law Secretary, four policemen, a gaoler, a boat's crew of natives. It would also be desirable to obtain from Cakobau a perpetual lease of his right to the island of Ovalau, so as to place it under municipal authority of white residents under Her Majesty's Consul, although Customs duties should be payable to the Fijian Government. Moreover, it would be necessary in such a case to send a ship to visit the islands frequently, and to employ a small vessel constantly, if the Consul found it necessary to use his discretionary power.
22. Your Lordship will understand the necessity for this when we say that we are of opinion, after due inquiry, that, if Cakobau were to die, or if Her Majesty's Government do not resolve on accepting the offer of cession now made, a struggle for power would begin among the Chiefs, which the whites, unaided by one of Her Majesty's ships or other evident force, might find it impossible to direct to a peaceful issue.
.
.
24. If Her Majesty's Government do not finally determine to annex these islands, the only course to be pursued is, in our opinion, to give Her Majesty's Consul the large discretionary powers and assistance above spoken of, with which he would have no difficulty in controlling the employment of Polynesian labourers, as Her Majesty's Consul is now endeavouring, but without magisterial powers, to do. By the employment of one of Her Majesty's ships most of the plantations have been visited, and some abuses have been remedied.
The great majority of the planters have been gratified by these visits, which Commodore Goodenough has reported to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, and have been glad to see the abuses (which have not been frequent) dealt with in a summary manner.
We here feel it due to the great body of planters to say that, with regard to food, clothing, and houses, the Polynesian labourers are far better off than when on their native islands.
25. We submit to you Lordship that, in the event of the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to annex these islands, the discretionary power above spoken of should be conferred upon Her Majesty's Consul without delay, as it is impossible to predict what may take place from day to day; and we think that this fact, taken in conjunction with the very brief sketch which we have given of the origin of the Government here, furnishes the justification and necessity for giving such powers. But we need not point out that the use of these powers, and the interference of Her Majesty's Consul in Fijian affairs, which the use of such power would bring about, would amount to a Protectorate, and would be a Protectorate of an undefined and inconvenient character.
26. We now offer a reply to your Lordship's questions under the head of the last of the four courses which are open to her Majesty's Government, viz., the acceptance of the cession of Fiji now offered.
Q(1) Whether Cakobau and the other native Chiefs, and the native population generally, as well as the white settlers, desire and would acquiesce in the establishment of the authority of the British Crown over the islands. Full inquiry should be made as to the power and authority of the Chiefs to make over the sovereignty? – A. We enclose a paper showing the express wish of Cakobau and the other Chiefs as to annexation to Great Britain. They have full power and authority to make the cession; and, were we to add anything to this, we should say that the lesser Chiefs and people are more anxious for annexation than the high Chiefs. Some of the latter have fears of their old rights of levying contributions of food, mats, and oil, &c., being taken away without recompense. But we find generally an unwillingness to dissent from an opinion of the superior Chief. We have taken the greatest pains to insure our obtaining a real record of the actual wishes of the Chiefs and people, and we consider the above-named document is as accurate a representation of that wish as can possibly be obtained. The white settlers are unanimous in their wish for annexation.
Q(2) What form of Government is it proposed should be established in the islands, in the event of their becoming British? – A. We have not only endeavoured to frame our own opinion as to what would be the best form of Government for these islands, but have also consulted the principal planters and others, and we find the general wish of the great majority to be in favour of that of a Crown Colony.
Q(3, 5) Is it supposed, having regard to the numbers and nationality of the white residents and of the native population, that responsible Government, as it exists in the neighbouring Colonies would be appropriate to Fiji; and, if so, is there among the settlers a sufficient number of persons qualified to supply the materials for an elected Legislature and for an Executive Government composed of members of that Legislature? – A. 3. We do not consider that responsible Government in any form would be suited to Fiji, nor do the people, white or native, desire it. On the contrary, feeling the recent failure of representative and responsible Government strongly, they unanimously wish for an Executive appointed from England. A. (5) Although some of the inhabitants of Levuka think that a plan of representation, akin to that now in existence in West Australia, would be best suited to the circumstances of the group, the majority of the planters outside Levuka, who are generally in small isolated groups and at a distance, are in favour of the stricter form of Crown Colony, in which the Legislature is composed, as in Singapore and Ceylon, of various officers of Government, natives, planters, and merchants.
Our own recommendation is in favour of this plan, and it is obvious that it is more desirable from two points of view – first, on account of the absolute necessity that the Governor should take upon himself the duty of the defence of the interests of the less intelligent natives against the inevitable pressure of an increasing white population; secondly, because the best and most industrious planters will not be found, at first, to be willing or able to sacrifice their time for the public good; and the choice of a representative of the planting community would probably fall on a merchant or other resident of Levuka, who would be rather a delegate or advocate for the district which he represented than a representative of the general requirements of the country.
Q(4) How, if at all, would the natives be represented in the Legislature? – A. It would be advisable to give the native Chiefs a strong representation in the Government, to the extent of equal, or nearly equal, numbers with the white unofficial members in the Legislative Council. Their good-will would thus be gained, and the Government would be fortified by their knowledge of their districts.
[25] Commodore Goodenough and Consul Layard also reported[15] on the then government's attempt to secure funding secured by Fijian lands:
27. We append a statement of the whole indebtedness or liability of the country. We have informed the white residents of the amount, and they have declared to us, more or less formally at different places, their willingness to acknowledge their responsibility for it, as well as for the expenses of a future Government.
28. We have been so fortunate as to obtain the assistance of two gentlemen, namely, Mr. Carl L. Sahl, a gentleman connected with mercantile firms in Sydney, and Mr. Thomas Horton, manager of the Fiji Bank, in the investigation of the accounts, and they have given us a report, which we enclose.
29. The greater part of the debt, and the portion which alone can be set to the account of natives has been used far more for the benefit of the native chiefs (and principally Cakobau) than for that of the actual people. The guarantees for the debt in general are laid upon the revenues of the country, the public lands of the country, and the private lands of the King; and we consider that the contribution of such lands, on the part of Cakobau and others, would be a sufficient share of the guarantee to fall on the natives. They contribute also to the revenue by their labour.
30. The extent of public land is, as will be seen, very small, and the chief security for one portion of the debt is what has been called the private lands of the King, but which are not strictly private. King Cakobau has rights of seignory over them, and is powerful enough to be able to remove and satisfy the population, but it is not more than a powerful lord of the manor. It would neither be just nor wise to allow the mortgagee to foreclose, but if the Crown could purchase any of them hereafter by private agreement it would be advantageous to do so.
32. The circumstances connected with the loan of 25,000∫, issued at Sydney, which produced 18,500∫, should be more fully related, in order that your Lordship may have an opportunity of forming an opinion upon them.
On the 25th July, 1872, a Bill (no. 31), which had been introduced into the Legislative Assembly of Fiji, was passed, empowering Government to contract a loan of 250,000 dollars on pledge of public lands.
In pursuance of an authority given under this Act, Mr. Woods, then Premier, went to Sydney and endeavoured to float the loan. The amount raised was to be used to take up former debentures, to erect buildings, and to engage in reproductive works. Mr. Woods found it impossible to place more than 125,000 dollars, or 25,000∫. At 80 to 90 per cent, and could only float that sum by pledging all of what was considered Cakobau's private lands, as well as whatever existed of public land.
The persons who negotiated the loan seem to have had doubts of the freedom of any land to be devoted to such a purpose, and asked certain questions of Mr. Woods, who, on the 7th September, 1872, made the following replies:-
Q: If the proposed security for the loan consists of land, can you show that such land has been specially reserved for such purpose? – A. The whole of the public domain is free of liability, saving and excepting 5,000 acres in the island of Ovalau. No lands have yet been sold by the Government of Fiji.
Q: Describe the position and character of such land, with plans and full particulars; also state when and by whom it was surveyed? – A. The territory of the Kingdom of Fiji is comprised in seventy-two islands, containing an area of 4,450,000 acres approximately, out of which 800,000 acres are alienated to white corporations and settlers, and 60,000 acres are held privately by His Majesty the King, his Chiefs and people, leaving a balance of over 3,000,000 acres of land, about 500,000 acres of which consists of barren and unfruitful lands, such as mountainous and rocky, land that cannot be cultivated. The lands have not yet been trigonometrically surveyed; they have been roughly surveyed and examined to test the accuracy of the Admiralty and American surveys, and those surveys were found correct approximately last year by the New Zealand and Admiralty Surveyors, invited by the King and people to proceed there to survey and test the capabilities of the islands.
33. We have requested Mr. Woods to explain to us how he could give the negotiators to understand that large areas of public land existed, over which the security was to extend, and he, in reply, read to us a resolution of the Privy Council (composed at that time of Cakobau and other Chiefs and the white Ministers) which recites that, the Chiefs agree that measures shall be taken to restrict the native occupiers to the lands which they require for cultivation, and that all remaining lands shall pass into the hands of the Government. If any attempt were made, even now, to proceed upon such a resolution, the greatest distress and disturbance would be the result. To proceed upon it would be to revolutionize the country and to attack the best known and most keenly felt right of the Fijians; and the resolution can only be looked upon as an attempt, by a number of white men, looked up to by their native colleagues as supremely wise in these matters, to create a property on paper which did not exist in fact, and could not be created without engaging in unjust war.
But when an attempt was made by the Ministers, through Mr. Woods, to act upon the paper title thus created, another responsibility was incurred.
A case for opinion was submitted to Sir William Manning of Sydney, New South Wales, by the negotiators of the loan, and Sir William Manning gave an opinion of which the following is an extract:-
"The first of Mr. A's points is that, he is not aware of the existence of any Crown of Public Lands sufficient and competent to form the subject of the mortgage on public lands which forms part of the securities. This of course depends upon matters of fact upon which I can have no knowledge. But it is clear that if Mr. A. be right, then the Act (No. 17, cap 2) on the subject of the disposal of the Government lands is a baseless enactment, whilst that (No. 31) by which the loan was authorized, 'on the pledges of such of the public lands as the King might assent to,' was equally baseless, and was a positive snare to the contemplate lenders; and so also the statement made to the lenders by the authority of the Government, as to the existence of large areas of public lands over which the security was to extend, was a falsehood and a delusion."
We cannot do otherwise than concur in Sir William Manning's opinion, and we add that the area of public lands, which is now, after great efforts have been made by the Chiefs, nominally 450,000 acres, was in 1872 only about 10,000 acres, exclusive of 5,000 acres already mortgaged; also that the right and power of Government over this land was by no means undisputed.
[53] The Report[16] concluded:
64. We have now given replies to the questions put prominently forward in our instructions; and, in conclusion, we beg to assure your Lordship that we can see no prospect for these islands, should Her Majesty's Government decline to accept the offer of cession, but ruin to the English planters and confusion in the native Government.
As a Crown Colony, we think that Fiji would certainly become a prosperous Settlement.
In addition to the great advantages of soil and climate which we have enumerated, the geographical position of Fiji has caused it to be chosen as a place of rendezvous for the steamers performing the mail service from California to New Zealand and New South Wales.
With the single exception of the beautiful and fertile island of Tavinui, the coasts abound in secure and admirable harbours, well known to the residents, and only requiring the continuation of an accurate survey to make them accessible to strangers.
[54] As to what position the Chiefs were to hold in the Colonial Government, the Report[17] recommended:
52. Your Lordship has particularly directed us to ascertain and point out what position the Chiefs would hold if the Islands were brought under British Government.
We have made very lengthened explanations to Cakobau and others of the native Chiefs, and have ascertained, both from themselves and from independent whites well acquainted with their habits and modes of thought, especially Mr Thurston, what their real wishes would be.
We enclose a statement of those expectations, made out by Mr Thurston in the names of the Chiefs. The latter understand little or nothing of these matters and of amounts of money, nor do they, nor can they foresee the effect which the advent of a Colonial Government and the increase of foreign population will produce on the old native customs and respect paid to them.
The Chiefs are obliged to trust their future to Her Majesty's Government (in Cakobau's own words to us, "He trusts in the generosity and justice of Her Majesty's Government"), and they ask white advisers to help them to secure their interests, which, in this matter, Mr Thurston has faithfully represented.
The old position of the great body of natives towards their Chiefs is one of undefined serfdom, moderated by certain customs. A Chief has food brought to him and to his followers, and has always been accustomed to exact contributions of mats, oil, &c., from those who look to him as their head. These contributions, which are necessarily vexatious because uncertain and arbitrary, have been and are still made at the present time, and are greatly valued by the Chiefs as, perhaps, the greatest proof of superiority they can show. We have endeavoured to explain to them that this could not be allowed to continue in force under a British Governor, but we doubt whether our assurances are either fully believed or understood. The idea is still new to them, and it is certain that the system can only be altered for one of direct salaries very gradually.
Any abrupt general change in this direction would weaken the authority of the Chiefs who are now, and should be for some to come, the rulers of their own people under the Central Government.
The old system, in short, should be allowed to exist on sufferance, unacknowledged, but, except in the case of extreme exactions, not interfered with. To abolish it would be to take away the foundation of social order. It will die out as the European population increases.
53. There can be no doubt that, of necessity, the authority and ease of a Chief's position must vanish unless he is utilized in the administration of the Government of the natives, and that, even when he is thus made use of, he will gradually lose many of his old privileges.
From this point of view it does not seem to us that the sums asked for the Chiefs, which may at first seem large, are excessive.
It is certain that they must gradually lose their customary tribute, and unless there be something to replace this, which is of great value as being such a forcible and evident proof of chieftainship, their authority must suffer.
NEGOTIATIONS FOR CESSION
[55] The circumstances leading up to and at the signing of the Deed of Cession were also explained in an open letter[18] in 1908 by Mr Wilkinson who was the chief interpreter at the time of cession:
AN OPEN LETTER
To His Excellency the Governor, Sir Everrard im Thurn
[Reprinted from THE WESTERN PACIFIC HERALD, July 3, 1908
__________________________________________________________________
YOUR EXCELLENCY, -
7. At this point I desire to crave Your Excellency's permission to give a brief outline of the circumstances connected with the cession of these islands to the British Crown, and also to state the part I was called upon to take in the necessary negotiations. Your Excellency is doubtless aware that before the mission of Sir Hercules Robinson, the Governor of New South Wales, in 1874, there had been at least three previous attempts to secure the cession or annexation of Fiji to Great Britain. One was instituted by H. B. M. Consul Pritchard in about 1858. Then Colonel Smythe, R. A., was sent out to investigate, but in 1862 Her Majesty declined to accept the cession, it being manifest that there was no common understanding or agreement between the several chiefs and heads of tribes. Then again in 1868 the question was raised once more and though strongly supported by H. B. M. Consul Captain Jones, V. C., the proposal was declined by the British Government having got into serious difficulties, a considerable agitation was got up in favour of annexation, and Commodore Goodenough was despatched to investigate the facts of the case, conjointly with H. B. M. Consul E. L. Layard. After a very thorough investigation they sent Home an offer of the cession and in their report strongly advised its acceptance, and although it was declined, nevertheless Sir Hercules Robinson was commissioned to proceed to Fiji for the purpose of making further enquiries, to make negotiations with the high chiefs, and, if possible, to obtain an unanimous expression of their willingness to cede their islands unconditionally to her Majesty the Queen.
8. At that time I was residing with my family at Bua, having retired from the Fijian Government service some time before. Early in September in 1874, and just prior to the arrival of Sir Hercules Robinson in Fiji, I received two official letters – one from the Premier of the Fijian Government (the late Sir John B. Thurston), and one from H. B. M. Consul E. L. Layard – requesting me to proceed without delay to Levuka to render whatever assistance I could in connection with the negotiations about to take place. A week later a steamer was despatched specially to convey me to the capital. By the same boat was sent to me Ratu Cakobau's Matanivanua (Ratu Sailose) with the following message:- "We are in great straits and difficulties and so perplexed that we scarce know what to do. We beg of you to come and help us, for we have confidence in you because you know us so well." In addition to this, and by the same vessel, I received from Commodore Goodenough a letter written in Sydney, informing me of the appointment of Sir Hercules Robinson as Her Majesty's Commissioner, and that he (the Commodore) would convey him to the islands in H. M. S. Pearl, and urging me to be in Levuka to meet the Commissioner on his arrival. Being thus importuned, and believing the call to be providential, I went on by the steamer. On the arrival of H. M. S. Pearl in Levuka, I was immediately sent for by His Excellency, who said to me: "I understand, Mr. Wilkinson, that the chiefs sent for you to assist them in their negotiations with me on the subject of the proposed cession of the islands to her Britannic Majesty the Queen. Is that so?" I replied in the affirmative. "Very good." His Excellency then said, "I also accept you as my medium of communication between myself and the chiefs. Further, I have informed the Fijian Government that I shall treat with the chiefs only. Now, I wish you to understand distinctly the everything that passes between myself and the chiefs on the subject of my mission, and from them to me must be regarded as strictly confidential. I trust fully to your fidelity and tact in this important and difficult piece of work upon which I have been sent." I was then required to take the usual oath of office, and to join His Excellency's staff on board the "Pearl."
9. My only object, sir, in giving these personal particulars is to show the exact position that I was called upon to take in connection with the negotiations referred to, and also to show that I enjoyed the entire confidence of all parties concerned.
10. Now permit me, sir, to give a brief connected account of the negotiations that immediately followed. The first step taken by His Excellency was to meet the Chiefs who had already arrived in Levuka. To these he read his Commission from Her Majesty the Queen, and submitted a draft of the proposals relating to the cession of the islands to Great Britain explaining the meaning of them with the utmost care. He requested Ratu Cakobau and his fellow chiefs to discuss the matter among themselves, and when their minds were made up to inform him, saying that Mr. Wilkinson would convey their wishes to him.
11. Two hours of discussion followed. They then requested me to proceed on board the "Pearl" and inform His Excellency that while they were quite ready to discuss the subject he had submitted to them, they considered it unwise to do so in the absence of such high chiefs as Maafu of Lau, Tui Cakau of Cakaudrove, and many others who had not yet arrived in Levuka, and so desired His Excellency to grant a short postponement. To this request His Excellency readily acceded, and thereupon decided to use the interval in visiting certain parts of the Group, and he invited Ratu Cakobau to accompany him placing at his disposal the H. M. S. "Dido," The places visited on the occasion were Lomaloma, Naduri and Bua.
12. On October 8th the chiefs (all of whom were now present) re-assembled in Council. The draft proposals were again submitted by His Excellency, who spent considerable time in carefully explaining them, clause by clause. He also replied to a number of questions put to him by the chiefs, removing certain doubts that some of them not unnaturally entertained. He definitely assured them that should the country be ceded to the British Crown, the established customs and usages of the people would not be interfered with except where manifestly wrong.
13. His Excellency having withdrawn, the discussion of the proposals laid before the chiefs was proceeded with continued to a late hour, when an adjournment was made until the next day. The important point that occupied serious attention when the Council re-assembled the next day was the giving of the soil ("qele"). They were prepared, they said, to give the "lewa" of their chiefdoms, also their country ("vanua"), but they had no right to give the soil ("qele"), for that belonged to the people ("sa kedra na lewe ni mataqali.") No chief, however high his rank, could justly give the soil of another man even though he were a member of his own mataqali. Cakobau, addressing Ratu Isikeli (Roko Tui Viwa), his own son Rau Epeli, Rau Savenaca (Cakobau's own brother), Nacagilevu of Kadavu, and Maafu of Lau said: - "None of us have any right to give even the smallest portion of the soil of any member of the mataqalis over whom we rule. The matter that we are now discussing must be most carefully dealt with, and our decision must be clear. What we do today cannot be undone tomorrow." The chiefs finally decided to request His Excellency to explain to them what was really meant by giving their county ("vanua"), "reefs, bays, rivers, mangrove swamps," etc. They also said, "We should like His Excellency to make clear to us what our position would be (in the event of cession taking place) with regard to our fishing and forest rights. These questions are perplexing our minds. We are confident that His Excellency will give us the kindest consideration." This message I duly conveyed to His Excellency.
14. After giving careful consideration to these points, His Excellency replied as follows:- "the cession must be full and complete, and include everything as specified in the document read to them. Let it be remembered, however, that they were giving as chiefs, in a chiefly manner ("vakaturaga"), and they must trust to the Queen's justice and generosity as their Sovereign and Highest Chief to return to them all or whatever part of their gift she may think right. They must also trust her to govern them righteously and in accordance with native usages and customs. They had mentioned annexation, and in the event of that taking place, their willingness to submit to his authority; but, as annexation would be contrary to his instructions, he could not consider their suggestion."
15. When this reply was read to the chiefs and explained, the effect was magical. Ratu Cakobau said, "You have heard the message. What is now our minds? You see we are not treating with the Levuka-beach white man, but with a chief who holds the Queen's Commission to us. We give as chiefs ("vakaturaga") to the Queen. She accepts as a chief ("vakaturaga"), as our chief. Her Majesty does not want our land ("qele"), or our fish, or our firewood, etc., but she does want our confidence and trust, and to do us good. Where did our lotu come from? Did we ever get anything bad from Britannia? What say we in reply?" The response from every part of the house was "It is clear! It is clear! Good! Good! It is well! It is well!" This practically concluded the negotiations.
16. The Instrument of Cession which had been rendered into Fijian clause by clause during the discussion, was then read to the Council, and duly signed by everyone present, both chief and commoner. I might say that before the document was signed it was read over by one of themselves, and in order to make sure that it was understood by all, I put the question: "Do you thoroughly understand what has now been read to you?" The reply was, "Yes, sir. There is nothing more to be added. It is quite clear." I was then requested to take the document to the Queen's Commissioner on board the "Pearl," a chief and a Matanivanua being appointed to accompany me. The document was presented to His Excellency with all due form in a speech by the Matanivanua, and duly accepted by him.
17. This, sir, was undoubtedly the real cession of the Islands to the British Crown from the native point of view. On my suggestion His Excellency met the chiefs again the same evening. He thanked them and commended them for their patient deliberations, and for the unanimous decision at which they had arrived, and, holding the signed document in his hand, said, "It shall be my honour and pleasure to present this document to Her Majesty the Queen, at whose command I undertook this Mission which has now terminated so satisfactorily." Arrangements were then made for the public signing of the Instrument of Cession (in English) the following day at Nasova.
18. At the hour appointed for the holding of this meeting a large concourse of people assembled. The chiefs, officials, and others occupied the central room at Nasova. Sir Hercules Robinson handed the Deed of Cession to Cakobau to be signed. The chief thereupon handed the document to me saying "Read, that all may hear." I cannot now recollect whether I read the Fijian copy which had been signed and presented to the Commissioner the day previous as already stated, or whether I translated direct from the English. The latter I think, most likely. The reading over, Cakobau rose, signed and affixed his seal, then called upon each chief, and each in turn came to the table and did likewise. Finally Sir Hercules G. R. Robinson signed as Her Majesty's Commissioner. The Fijian flag was then lowered and the Union Jack hoisted in its place, amid the cheers of the people. The function terminated with a salute from the ships of war in harbour.
19. I now beg permission, sir, to offer a few remarks upon some other statements contained in Your Excellency's message that appear to me to reflect upon my official conduct. Your Excellency says, when speaking of the Herculean task that Sir Arthur Gordon had to face on assuming the governorship of this country, "it may probably be safely assumed that as regards the Deed of Cession, and Native affairs generally, he really relied to a great extent on Mr. Wilkinson, who, as we have seen, had very definite but very illusory ideas of the effect of that Deed." I humbly submit that this statement is unsupported by evidence. Where, I would respectfully ask, does Your Excellency show in the message that my "ideas of the effect of the deed" were "very illusory?" Now, permit me to say, that my "very definite" ideas of the effect of the deed were that peace and good government would result.
20. Again, Your Excellency says, "The Deed of Cession said plainly, and meant, that all lands not shown to have been alienated and not in the actual use or occupation of some chief or tribe, or not actually required for the further support of some chief or tribe, were absolutely vested in Her Majesty. But, plain as these words may seem, they were misunderstood. Were the lands reserved for the natives only those actually used and occupied by them ... or, did the term include also the lands which they neither occupied, used, or needed? That the former of these two alternatives was truly the one intended, I think is obvious, but, unfortunately, the Governor and his guides took the second meaning as the true one." As one of the "guides" probably referred to in this paragraph, I may be permitted to reply, that I never doubted that the former of these two alternatives contained the real meaning when viewed from a strictly legal standpoint: but, always having a very vivid recollection of the oft-repeated assurances given by Sir Hercules Robinson to the chiefs that Her Majesty would act towards them as generously as they had acted towards her; and remembering the emphatic declaration made by the chiefs to the Queen's Commissioner that they had no right to give their peoples' lands; it never occurred to me to gratuitously advise the carrying out of the actual letter of the law with regard to surplus lands.
21. I would now respectfully draw Your Excellency's attention to two or three slight inaccuracies in certain other statements made. (1) "the proposal was deliberately adopted by Cakobau, a few days later by Maafu, and the chiefs of the Lau Confederacy." This, sir, is not correct. What they adopted was done on the same day, and also in the presence of each other. (2) "It is quite certain that Commodore Goodenough, Consul Layard, and Sir Hercules Robinson, the three persons chiefly concerned on the British side in arranging the Cession of Fiji", etc. The fact, is that Mr. Consul Layard had nothing whatever to do with the negotiations re the Cession, and never appeared on the scene until the day the Deed of Cession (in English) was signed. Again, Commodore Goodenough was only present at one interview with the chiefs, and that at the first introduction of the Commissioner. Nothing could be more clear than this, that Sir Hercules Robinson accepted the sole responsibility of the negotiations and the issue, and he alone was the certified Queen's Commissioner, and signed the Deed of Cession.
22. In conclusion, I desire, sir, to express the hope that I have not exceeded my rights as a retired Public Officer in thus addressing an open letter to Your Excellency. The reflections on my official acts and conduct having been publicly made, it seemed to me that my only course was to reply in this way. Remembering, sir, my Colonial Service, my Service under the Fijian Government, my previous Service to the Native chiefs, and their Confederacies, extending in all over a period of forty years, and remembering too that in serving the Government I did so at very great personal loss. I cannot help thinking that I merited kinder consideration than I have received at Your Excellency's hands. I might go further and say that I feel very keenly indeed the inconsiderate treatment meted out to me by the Governor of this Colony at the close of my long career.
I have the honour to be Your Excellency's
Most obedient servant,
D. WILKINSON.
Suva, June 30, 1908.
[56] As to whether the Deed of Cession was properly explained to the Chiefs, Mr Wilkinson answered that in his open letter[19]:
YOUR EXCELLENCY, -
My attention has been drawn to the fact that in Your Excellency's Opening Message to the second Legislative Council, held in Suva on the 11th May last, my name is mentioned in connection with the native affairs of the Colony generally, and particularly with regard to the native land question. I must confess, sir, that on reading the Message as published in the local papers of the 15th and 16th May, I was deeply pained to find therein several grave charges thus publicly preferred against my competency and official conduct. I cannot help thinking, sir, that the course taken was somewhat unfair, no opportunity having been given to me to rebut the charges or give any explanation that it might be in my power to offer.
2. Of course, I do not for one moment doubt that Your Excellency fully believed in the truthfulness of the statements made, and this being so I feel the utmost liberty in replying to them. I am sure, sir, that all sane persons will admit that it is my bounden duty to (a) defend my own character, and (b) to see that no injustice is done to those Imperial officers under whom I have had the honour to serve both prior to the cession of the group to the British Crown and subsequently in the public service of the Colony.
3. Now, with respect to the charges. These are as follows:-
(a) That I "tried to paraphrase the purport as I conceived it, of the Deed of Cession."
(b) That I "never understood the purport of the Deed of Cession, and that the view of it which I expressed in Fijian was absolutely incorrect."
(c) That I misled Sir Arthur Gordon with regard to the Deed of Cession.
4. Permit me, sir, to reply to these accusations. With regard to the first, that I tried to paraphrase. Now, to paraphrase is to express form. This I certainly did, but contend that my translation is an accurate rendering of the sense of the Deed of Cession. The words "he tried to paraphrase the purport as he conceived it," appear to me to be intended to convey the meaning that my conception of the purport was incorrect; I humbly submit that this has not been shown, and further that it was not so in fact.
5. I pass on, sir, to the second, "He never understood the Deed of Cession." Certainly I had abundant opportunity for studying it. It was in my hands for at least ten days before it was finally adopted. Each section, clause and phrase was explained by its author. Possible misconstructions were most carefully considered. Then for three days a similar process was gone through in Fijian in the Council of Native Chiefs. Their difficulties and objections were met and answered to their own and the Queen's Commissioner's satisfaction, I therefore have no hesitation in saying that the chiefs thoroughly understood the meaning and purport of the document. Now, sir, permit me to state an interesting fact. When the English Deed of Cession was formally signed, there were several gentlemen present who heard my translation. Amongst these may be mentioned the Rev. F. Lanham, D. D., of the Wesleyan Mission, the Rev, Father Breheret, of the Roman Catholic Mission, R. S. Swanston, Secretary of Native Affairs, J. B. Thurston, Premier of the Fiji Government, all of whom had a very thorough knowledge of the Fijian, his language, usages, and modes of thought. Two at least of these were asked afterwards by Sir Hercules Robinson if they considered that the chiefs understood what they had signed. Their reply was "thoroughly."
6. With regard to the third charge, viz, that I misled Sir Arthur Gordon with regard to the Deed of Cession; my reply, sir, is this: If I have shown, as I think I have, that I did not mislead the native chiefs on this important matter, surely it is most improbable that I would endeavour to mislead Sir Arthur Gordon. Then again, we must not lose sight of the fact that his Excellency had ever before him the Deed of Cession in English, so it is difficult to see how he could be misled either by myself or anyone else. Then to suppose Sir Arthur capable of being misled in the way indicated is surely a grave reflection upon a gentleman of singular conscientiousness, high ability, and courageous spirit.
[57] The Record of Interview[20] between Chief Cakobau and Sir Hercules Robinson on 10 October 1874 on HMS "Dido" before the signing of the Deed of Cession records:
Sir Hercules:-
"As to the land question, I have been surprised to hear that some misapprehension exists as to what might be the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to land.
"That misapprehension, I am told, has arisen in consequence of the recent discussion in the House of Lords – you may be perfectly certain that nothing unjust will be done.
"What has occurred to me as the fairest way of arranging the matter I have this morning discovered to be included in the code of laws of the Lau Confederacy, viz., that all lands which can be shown to have been fairly and honestly acquired by whites shall be secured to them; that all lands that are now in actual use or occupation of any chief or tribe, and such lands as may be necessary for the probable future support and maintenance of any chief or tribe, shall be set apart for them, and that all the residue of the land shall go to the government, not for the personal advantage of Her Majesty or the members of any Government, but for the general good, for the purposes of rule and order.
"The more public land there is, the less necessity for taxation, the less burdensome to the people will be the maintenance of peace, the administration of justice, the building of hospitals and other institutions of public utility. For such purposes as these, and not for adding to the wealth of the Queen, it is a matter of necessity to have public land."
Cakobau, in reply, said:-
"I am very much pleased to hear your sentiments as to the land question, and that disputed titles will be finally adjusted.
"In some cases I fear both sides will suffer; but it is better that such questions should be set at rest, even at the cost of a little suffering.
"Of one thing I am afraid, that if we do not cede Fiji, the white stalkers on the beach, the cormorants, will open their maws and swallow us up.
"The white residents are going about influencing the minds of Tui Cakau and other chiefs so as to prevent annexation, fearing that in case order is established a period may be put to their lawless proceedings. By annexation the two races, white and black, will be joined together, and it will be impossible to sever them; the 'lacing' has come.
"The Fijians, as a nation, are of an unstable character, and a white man who wishes to get anything out of a Fijian, if he does not succeed in his object to-day will try again tomorrow, until the Fijian is either worried out or over persuaded and gives in. But law will bind us together."
THE DEED OF CESSION
[58] On 10 October 1874 the Deed of Cession was signed at Levuka by the Chiefs of Fiji and Sir Hercules Robinson on behalf of the British Crown followed by a Proclamation[21] of Fiji as a "Possession and Dependency of the British Crown".
[59] On the same day, the Governor directed[22] the publication for general information of the following documents:
I
COPY OF RESOLUTION of Thakombau, Tui Viti, and Vunivalu, and other high Chiefs of Fiji, in Council assembled; - handed by them to His Excellency Sir Hercules George Robert Robinson, at an interview held at Nosova, on Wednesday, the 30th September, A.D., 1874.
KIVUA NA MARAMA NA TUI PERITANIA –
Keimami na Tui Viti, vata kei ira na Turaga lelevu kei Viti, keimami sa soli Viti walega vua na Marama levu ka dau loloma mai Peritania Levu kei Airaladi ni keimami sa vakararavi sara ni na lewai Viti vakadodonu, e na veilomani, me yaco tu ga mai kina na tiko vinaka.
Io keitou kerea vua na Kovana ko Sir Hercules Robinson, na nona talai na Marama me rogoci ira na neitou veivuke ena ka eso era na tukuna vua ni keimami sa vakararavi vei ira ka qara me tinia vinaka na veivosaki oqo.
(Signed) - CAKOBAU R.
[Translation]
UNTO HER MAJESTY QUEEN OF BRITAIN –
We, King of Fiji, together with other high Chiefs of Fiji, hereby give our country, Fiji, unreservedly to Her Britannic Majesty Queen of Great Britain and Ireland; and we trust and repose fully in Her that she will rule Fiji justly and affectionately, that we may continue to live in peace and prosperity.
And we, desiring these conferences may terminate well and satisfactorily request Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador unto us, Sir Hercules George Robert Robinson, will confer with our advisers who have our confidence in these matters.
(Signed) - CAKOBAU R
D. WILKINSON, Chief Interpreter
II
INSTRUMENT OF CESSION of the Islands of Fiji by Thakombau, styled Tui Viti and Vunivalu, and by the other high Chiefs of the said Islands to Her Most Gracious Majesty Victoria, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, &c., &c., &c.
WHEREAS divers subjects of Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland have from time to time settled in the Fijian group of Islands, and have acquired property, or certain pecuniary interests therein; AND WHEREAS the Fijian Chief Thakombau, styled Tui Viti and Vunivalu, and other high Chiefs of the said islands, are desirous of securing the promotion of civilisation and Christianity, and of increasing trade and industry within the said Islands; AND WHEREAS it is obviously desirable in the interests as well of the native as of the white population, that order and good government should be established therein; AND WHEREAS the said Tui Viti and other high Chiefs have conjointly and severally requested Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland aforesaid to undertake the government of the said islands henceforth; AND WHEREAS, in order to (sic) the establishment of British Government within the said islands, the said Tui Viti and other the several high Chiefs thereof, for themselves and their respective tribes, have agreed to cede the possession of, and the dominion and sovereignty over the whole of the said islands, and over the inhabitants thereof, and have requested Her said Majesty to accept such Cession, - which Cession the said Tui Viti and other high Chiefs, relying upon the justice and generosity of Her said Majesty, have determined to tender unconditionally, - and which Cession on the part of the said Tui Viti and other high Chiefs is witnessed by the execution of these presents, and by the formal surrender of the said territory to Her said Majesty; AND WHEREAS His Excellency Sir HERCULES GEORGE ROBERT ROBINSION, Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Governor, Commander-in-Chief, and Vice-Admiral of the British Colony of New South Wales and its Dependencies, and Governor of Norfolk Island, hath been authorised and deputed by Her said Majesty to accept on Her behalf the said Cession:-
NOW THESE PRESENTS WITNESS, --
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the whole of the contents of this instrument of Cession having been, previously to the execution of the same, interpreted and explained to the Ceding parties hereto, by David Wilkinson, Esquire, the interpreter nominated by the said Tui Viti and the other high Chiefs and accepted as such interpreter by the said Sir Hercules George Robert Robinson, the respective parties hereto have hereunto set their Hands and Seals.
Done at Levuka, this tenth day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four.
(Sd) CAKOBAU R, Tui Viti and Vunivalu (L.S.)
MAAFU (L.S.)
TUI CAKAU (L.S.)
RATU EPELI (L.S.)
VAKAWALETABUA, TUI BUA (L.S.)
SAVENACA (L.S.)
ISIKELI (L.S.)
ROKO TUI DREKETI (L.S.)
NACAGILEVU (L.S.)
RATU KINI (L.S.)
RITOVA (L.S.)
KATUNIVERE (L.S.)
MATANITOBUA (L.S.)
(Sd) HERCULES ROBINSON (L.S.)
I hereby certify that, prior to the execution of the above instrument of Cession, which Execution I do hereby attest, I fully and faithfully interpreted and explained to the Ceding parties hereto, the whole of the contents of the said document (the several interlineations on page line and on page line of the manuscript having first been made), and that such contents were fully understood, and assented to by the said Ceding parties. Prior to the execution of the said instrument of Cession, I wrote out an interpretation of the same in the Fijian language, which interpretation I read to the several Chiefs, who one and all approved thereof. A copy of such interpretation is hereto annexed, marked A.
Dated this 10th day of October, A. D. 1874
(Signed) D. Wilkinson, Chief Interpreter
A
A I VOLA –VEIVOSAKI NI SOLIA na, vei yanuyanu ko Viti, Ko ira na vunivalu ko Cakobau, ko na Tui Viti vata kei ira na kena Turaga lelevu era sa soli Viti, ki vua na Marama levu ka dau-loloma, ko Vikitoria e na loloma ni Kalou sa Tui ka dau maroroya na lotu dina ni Peritania levu kei Airaladi.
Me vaka:- Ni sa so na kai Papalagi na nona tamata na Tui Piritania levu kei Airaladi, era sa mai tiko e na veiyanuyanu ko Viti, e na vei gauna e so, ka ra sa rawata mai kina na vanua eso kei nay au talega. Ia ko ira na Vunivalu ko Cakobau na Tui Viti, vata kei ira na kena Turaga lelevu, kai Taukei ni vei yanuyanu oqo, era sa gadreva ka qara me yaco rawa vakavinaka nav aka Sivilaisesoni, kei na Lotu, ka me tubu cake devaki na tiko vinaka, na veiyole, na gumatua ni rawa yau, e na vei yanuyanu oqori. Ka ni sa macala vaka sigalevu ni sa ka yaga vei ira na lewenivanua Taukei kei ira na kai Papalagi me yaco tu ga mai kina, na lewa vinaka vaka Matanitu, kei na tiko vinaka.
Ia ni sa lomadra dina kina, era sa taroga ka kerea ko ira na Tui Viti kei ira yadua na kena Turaga lelevu, vua na Marama dauloloma na Tui ni Piritania Levu kei Airaladi, me mai taura na lewa vaka Matanitu mai na gauna oqo, ka me vakatura kina ni lewa vaka Piritania e na vei yanuyanu oqo era sa solia ko na Tui Viti vata kei ira na kena turaga lelevu ni ra sa loma vata kina me ra solia, era sa roqota ka musuka vua na Marama ka kerea me vakadonuya ka taura ko koya, ni ra sa qai solia Viti Walega vua na Marama ko ira na Tui Viti kei ira na kena Turaga lelevu ni ra sa vakararavi kin a nona lewa dodonu kei na nona dau veilomani.
Ia sa caka nai vola oqo me kenai vakata-kila ka me macala kina ni sa nodra cakacaka vakai ira ga, ko na Tui Viti, kei na kena Turaga lelevu, ka sa kenai solisoli, kai kaukau me musuka kina vua na Marama.
Ia ni sa lesi na Turaga vinaka ko Sir Hercules George Robert Robinson, Knight Commander of the Most Honourable Order of Commander of the Most Honorable Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Kovana, ka nodra Turaga na Turaga ni valu main a yasana vaka Piritania, ko Welesi Vou mai na Ceva (e yak o Siteni), kei na kena veivanua ka Kovana ni yanuyanu ko Novoka. Ia ni sa lesia ko na Marama ka talai koya mai me mai cakava na kena cakacaka e na yacana, ka me taura ka vakadonuya nai vola oqo e ka sa solia kina na vanua na vei yanuyanu ko Viti.
Ia sai koya oqo na ka sa vakatakilai e nai vola oqo, sav aka.
Ai Matai – Ia san a taura tiko na veiyanuyanu oqo ko Viti vakai Taukei sar ko na Marama, vata kei na kena lewa vakaturaga vaka Tui, me yacova na kena vei yalayala, me vaka sa volai tu oqo. Ia ko Viti sa tiko main a tikini vuravura e na wasawasa na yacana ko Pesivika Osani kin a ceva ia na kena vei yalayala me vaka sa vola tu e na kena Mapi ena yasai vuravura kin a ceva nai ka 15° ni Latitute i ceva, kei nai ka 22° ni Latitute i ceva ga ni wilika main a vei mama kei vuravura. Ian a vei yalayala main a Ra mai nai ka 177° ni Ra, ki nai ka 175° ni Tokalau (se na tui cake,) ko yaruarua ni wili main a meritiani ni koro ko Kirinesi qori na kena vei Yalayala kei Viti, ka sa solia vata, ko ira na Lewenivanua kecega sa tiko mai kina, kei na kena Waitui sav akavolivolita, kei na kena vei Toba, se daveta, se kelekele ni Waqa, se uciwai, se drakaniwai, e ya na wai kecega, kei na cakau kece, kei na Baravi, se matasawa kece, kei na kena ka kece tale me vaka sat u kina, se voleka kina, sa yalataki ka solia sara oqo, ka sa vakadonuya talega me taura tiko na Marama na Tui ni Piritania levu keei Airaladi kei ira san a tarava e na nonai tutu vaka Tui, me vaka oqo e ya main a gauna oqo ka yacova na veigauna mai muri ka tawa mudu, me sa vanua vaka Piritania na vei yanuyanu oqo ko Viti, na kena wai, na kena cakau kece talega sat u kina, se voleka kina, se sa volita, me nona vakai Taukei dina sara, ka me vakarorogo kin a Lewa vaka Tui ni Piritania.
Ai ka rua – Ia sa na lewa ga na Marama na kenai valavala, se ai tovo, ni lewa vaka Matanitu sa yaga me vokaturi mai kina e ya me rawati Viti vinaka, kei na vei ka me rawa kina na kena gacagaca ka me sauma rawa kina na kena cakacaka vaka Matanitu. Kei na vei Lawa, se lewa me vakatura, ka vakayacora kina e na vei Yanuyanu oqo ko Viti.
Ai ka tolu – Ia ni sa bera mai na nona lewa na Marama me vaka sa tukuna e cake, e ya nai tutu dina ni lewa vaka Matanitu, e na vei yanuyanu oqo ko Viti. Era sa kerea, ko na Tui Viti kei na kena Turaga lelevu e yak o ira sa kitaka ka vakayacora na soli vanua oqo, ki vua na Turaga sa talai mai na Marama, ko Sir Hercules George Robert Robinson, me vaka na nonai lesilesi sat aura tu oqo ko koya, e ra sa kerea vua me lewa ka vakatura na lewa vaka Matanitu, e na gauna ga e daidai e na veiyanuyanu oqo ko Viti, ia me vaka e nanuma ko koya sa na yaga kina.
Ai ka va – E na vuku ni vanua i Viti ko ya sa volitaki oti vei ira na kai Papalagi e so, ni ran a tukuna ni sa nodra, ka sa macala mai na kena veitarotarogi ni sa dina sara, ni nodra vaka dodonu se ko ya e ra sat aura tiko ko ira na turaga e so, se mataqali, se ko ira na lewenivanua taukei e ya ni sa vakayagataka tiko oqo, se ni na qai vota vei ira na Turaga, se mataqali, se lewenivanua me rauti ira vinaka na tamata yadua, e na gauna oqo ka me na rauti ira vinaka e na vei gauna mai muri. Ian a vanua sa vo ni sa votai oti vaka, sa yalataki ka sa solia sara oqoki vua na Marama, me nona dina sara vakai Taukei vaka turaga, vata kei ira sa na tarava e na nonai tutu vakatui.
Ai ka lima – ia kevaka sa na yaga e dua na tikinivanua ki na Matanitu se kena cakacaka, e na dua na gauna mai muri, ka sa vanua vakai Taukei, sa na qai rawarawa ka tara vua na Marama me taura na tikinivanua ko ya ka vakayagataka kina. Ia ka sa na sauma vaka dodonu vua nai Taukei ni sa kauta tani mai vua na kena vanua.
Ai ka ono. E na vuku ni ka ni Matanitu oqo i Viti, e ya na vei vale kece na vei tikini vanua sat aura tu se vakayagataka tiko e na ka vaka Matanitu na kena yau, se yaya, se gacagaca se dua tale na ka, sa tauri ka vakayagataki tiko se vakatokai me ka vaka Matanitu ni Viti sa qai solia vata talega vua na Marama me nona dina, ka me kenai Taukei, ka me vakayagataka, ko koya.
Ai ka vitu – Sa tolu na ka sa yalataka oqo ko Sir Hercules George Robert Robinson, ena yacana na Marama, me na vakabau mai muri (Ai matai). E na vukudra na Tui Viti kei ira na kena Turaga lelevu era sa cakava, ka solia oqo, sa na vakabau tiko, ka vakadinadinataka na nodra tutu vaka turaga, ka maroroya na nodra ka yadua, ia me vaka ga e rawa ka kilikili kei na lewa vakatui ni Piritania vaka Matanitu sa dau vakatura e na kenai vei vanua kisau, e ya vaka sa na qai vakaturi i Viti mai na gauna oqo (Ai ka rua). E na vuku ni dinau ni Matanitu kevaka sat u e dua mai vola-veivosaki ka sa kunea ni sac aka dodonu ni sa veitarotaroga vakalailai vakavinaka ka na qai lewa kina me vakadonuya vaka ga, sa dodonu, ka yaga kei na lewa vakavuku ka deivaka (Ai ka tolu). E na vuku ni vanua sa volitaki, se soli oti ni ran a qai tukuna, se taroga ko ira na tamata ni ra sai tuakei ni tikini vanua e so ka vaka me vakadinadina taki vei ira sa na qai vakataroga sara me kila na dina, ia ena vukudra talega, na Turaga san a vakai tavi e na cakacaka ni Matanitu ka vaka me dua na kedrai sau se vakavakacegu main a nodrai tavi se ko ira na Tui Viti, kei ira na kena turaga lelevu kece se so vei ira san a vakataroga talega ka me lewa dodonu kina e na kena gauna.
SAI VAKATAKILAI nai vola oqo ni ra sa vakadinadinataka ko ira na Turaga sa cakava, ni sa laveta oti mada kin a vosavakaviti ko Tevita Wilikinisoni ko koya era sa lesia ko na Tui Viti kei ira na Turaga lelevu, ka sa vakabauta talega ko Sir Hercules George Robert Robinson, na Kovana me kena dau lavi vosa kina, ka sa wilika, ka vakamacalataka oti ko koya ki vei ira kece e na vosa vakaviti ni sa bera ni ra tabaka. Era sa qai vakadinadinataka ko ira yadua na turaga e na ligadra dina kei na nodra sili, ni ra lomadina kin a ka era sa cakava oqo.
Sa caka ka vakayacora mai Levuka, e nai ka tini ni siga ni vula ko Okotopa ni yabaki ni nodra Turagi e dua na udolu ka walu na drau ka vitusagavulu ka va.
----------------------------------
This is the document marked A referred to by me in my certificate of attestation and interpretation at the foot of the instrument of cession.
D. WILKINSON
Chief Interpreter
INDEPENDENCE
[60] On 10 October 1970, the British Crown returned to the peoples of this country their right to self government. The Fiji Independence Act 1970 [Cap 1] provides by s 1(1) that on and after 10th October 1970 ("the appointed day") "Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of Fiji".
[61] The Fiji Independence Order 1970 which revoked previous Orders by Her Majesty in Council and gave effect to the new Constitution provided by s 5:
5(1) The revocation of the existing Orders shall be without prejudice to the continued operation of any existing laws made, or having effect as if they had been made, under any of those Orders: and the existing laws shall have effect on and after the appointed day as if they had been made in pursuance of the Constitution and shall be construed with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with the Fiji Independence Act 1970 and this Order.
(5) It is hereby declared, for the avoidance of doubt, that, save as otherwise provided either expressly or by necessary implication, nothing in this Order shall be construed as affecting the continued operation of any existing law.
HISTORY OF THE SUVA LANDS & PEOPLE
[62] According to the Plaintiffs, Yavusa Nauluvatu, Vatuwaqa and Nayavumata had occupied the Suva peninsula from time immemorial. Yavusa Nauluvatu and Vatuwaqa owned land from the sea coast to the Waiqariti Creek. Yavusa Nayavumata owned land from Waiqariti Creek to the border with what are now Tamavua lands owned jointly with Mataqali Tuicolo of Tamavua.
[63] The three tribes had to flee from their lands in 1843 because of an attack by Rewa, Vuna and Lami forces. They regained their lands in 1846 with the help of Chief Cakobau. The following paragraphs give the details of the origins of the Suva people and their struggle for their lands.
[64] Colman Wall, in two papers entitled "Sketches in Fijian History"[23], read to the Fijian Society on 25 May 1919, recorded the history of Suva and the great war between Rewa and Bau. However, before I quote from the paper I remind myself of the author's caveat[24]:
The turning into written history of oral traditions must always present many difficulties, and the fact that one speaks an alien tongue does not make matters easier; and neither does the search for elusive dates, nor trying to put on record Melanesian names that refuse to be spelled, even phonetically; so the reader must excuse this narrative if it at times seems rugged and desultory.
But, after all, I and those who are working with me are but as workers quarrying out blocks that the edifice may be built, and so long as we do this faithfully we can safely leave the carving and polishing of the stones to other times, and other hands.
Most of the facts recorded in this paper are well known, and can be verified by reference to contemporary writers; the incidents that connect them together I got from old natives of Suva, most of whom are now dead, and coming from such a source may have been naturally affected by their feelings and prejudices as clansmen, so that when we get the story from other sources a different light may be thrown on some parts of it. I have added nothing to the narrative, even the translations of the speeches at Uluvatu and Bau are literal. In rendering names into English I have tried rather to give the idea they conveyed to the mind of the natives, than to translate them literally.
[65] Colman Wall records[25] the early history of Suva as follows:
The promontory of Suva lies between Suva and Laucala Bays, and its hinterland stretches north to the Waimanu River; on the east it reaches geographically, but no period politically, to the Rewa River; while the chiefs of Suva, even in the old days, exercised little authority westward of the Tamavua River, and the line of the old Colo-i-Suva Road.
The present race of Suva people claim to have crossed the central tableland of Navitilevu from Saivou, on its northern slope, above the Vitilevu bay, their leader being Tabanimakoveve (branch of the crooked mako tree), who on the male side is claimed to have been an immediate descendant of Degei, and hence was of chiefly rank, and so his person was sacred so that no-one of lesser rank dared attempt to strike him even in open warfare, while his mother was a princess of the veli, or dwarf race, the primitive inhabitants of Fiji. This lady, as was customary, introduced into the Suvan clan her own tribal worship of Na Leka (the short one), who was supposed to become visible to his votaries as a small white dog. The dog, pig, rat, and domestic fowl were coeval inhabitants with man in all the larger South Sea Islands.
The first migration of the clan southward towards Suva would seem to have taken place in the earlier stage of Melanesian settlement in Fiji. I have had several natives attempt to give me a list of the hundred children, or probably companions, of Degei. None of them were very satisfactory, but all coincided in the scarcity of female names recorded, which is what one might naturally expect amongst a party of Melanesians flying in defeat from some western home. And this fact helps to explain Tabanimakovere's maternity. Besides the veli race has so long been extinct on this island as to have become in part mythical, and have almost been finally blotted from history by some old-time beachcomber Celt (perhaps Charley Connor), who dubbed them fairies.
By successive stages, most probably at different times, and evidently from the number of sub-clan names in distinct bodies, the Suva people reaches the district lying to the south of the Waimanu River, and here they planted and fished and build frail villages, whose names even are forgotten, but they gradually moved down towards the sea, for a time stopping about Tamavua and at Rairainawaqa (in after days for long the home of Cuthbert family), and finally settled on the high land the present lunatic Asylum, their citadel being the steep gray rock of Uluvatu that rises sheer up from the waters of Walu Bay. On the very top of this hill four mounds are still as intact as they were nearly one hundred years ago when the place was abandoned, they are the yavu on which the great houses stood. That nearest the road was the site of the harem or dwelling of the great ladies, close to it is the site of the chief's house, immediately in front of this is the house or hall of council where the old veteran chiefs lived, and a little below it is the site of the temple of the god Ro Vonu (the turtle); all of the mounds showing by their rounded shape that the buildings on them were of the old conical design, while the absence of anything like the site of a kitchen sows that they cooked in earth ovens in the open air, for pottery and cooking pots were alike unknown to the old Fijian Melanesian.
Cunningly hidden amongst trees at the landward side of the bluff was the cave of refuge for the women and children in times of danger (there is hardly a hill town to be found without one). The burial place of the itaukei, (landowners), was on a shelf of the cliff, while the burial place of the chiefs was in a cave in Sealark Hill, on the other side of Walu Bay, now demolished, and the matasawa (landing place for canoes) was in Walu Bay amongst the mangroves at the foot of the cliff.
The whole place is a natural stronghold. On the side next to Walu Bay, and along above the Lunatic Asylum the rocky sides are precipitous, along the Reservoir Road, the only open side, still may be traced the line of the old defensive moat, while on the east it was protected by the deep gully cut by the Dukulu, which little creek flows across the Waimanu Road and falls into Walu Bay. On the flat between the top of the caves and the road were the dwellings of the itaukei, those of the kai Walu or fisherman being nearest the sea, and here is still to be seen the yavu (mound) on which formerly stood the burenisa (club house) of the warriors, which helped to strengthen this side of the town.
The vicinity of the cave of refuge, and the little fern-strewn glen leading to it, was once one of the beauty spots of Suva, as it is now its lasting disgrace. The little glen has been crossed by the ugly embankment of a tramline, and is strewn with the detritus of a quarry, the trees that hid the cave have been cut down, one side of the cave seems to have been blown in, and the whole place is disfigured with mud and fragments of stone.
The view from Uluvatu in the old days must have been wonderfully beautiful; the smooth silver waters of the bay lay at its feet stretching out to the long line of white foam on the outer reef, with every shallow and rock pictured out as clearly as in a painting, nothing disturbing their calm loneliness save the birdlike passage of some sailing canoe. The western side of the bay has been but little altered, Joske's Peak showing a little indistinctly against the higher background, but Shark's Fin Hill stands out clearly over a depression in the range, whole the huge bulk of double-lipped Korobaba towers over all. Seaward lies Beqa, the home of the fire walkers, and on a clear day, one may see far to the southward the mountain tops in eastern Kadavu; but the eastern side of the bay (where now the red roofs of Suva show out so sharply from surrounding trees), was then one unbroken mass of verdure of all the varying hues of green that the tropics alone know of: ivi, vutu, and breadfruit, with occasional clumps of vesi, while here and there along the beach the denseness of the main mass of foliage was relieved by the ceaseless movement of graceful frondage of the coconut. And it is this thick mass of bush, from its backbone ridge of hills to the waters of the bay, that gave the whole side of the promontory the name of Muanikau, or "Point of the Trees"; that name is now restricted to the extreme end of it beyond Nasese, though now about there, as in a Scottish deer forest, the trees are conspicuous by their absence.
It was mainly the attempt of the early settlers of the Polynesian Company to turn this side of the bay into a sugar plantation that was responsible for the change. For a time the attempt seemed successful, but no sooner was the light layer of soil covering the co-called 'soapstone' exposed to the action of the sun, and the tropic rains, than it crumbled up and was washed away, and left only the bare stretches of soapstone rock with which we are so familiar. But this rock, containing as it does traces of phosphate, when broken up and exposed to the weather, can in a warm moist climate like Fiji easily support plant life. But many of the trees now seen about Suva are introduced, not indigenous. Still, if we are to understand the story of old Suva alright, the presence of the original forest must be carefully borne in mind.
As the population of Uluvatu increased, partly from natural causes and partly by the accession of units from other clans (an instance of the latter being a section of the Nacokaika people who settled for a time at Bawalai, near Tamavua, and afterwards joined in the exodus to Vatuwaqa) a new settlement and new planting grounds became necessary, and the site fixed on was the hill then known as Vatuwaqa, now better know as Flagstaff Hill. Unlike Uluvatu, it could boast of no rock citadel but its steep clay sides, rising from the low flats between it and Laucala Bay made it a natural fortress, and on the other sides it was protected where necessary by huge earthern ramparts, parts of which still remain.
The road from Uluvatu to Vatuwaqa led down to the creek Dukura just above the spot where it falls suddenly into Walu Bay, where either nature or man has cut away its steep sides to the level of the bed of the creek. This spot was the scene of an incident in the opening years of the last century that is till well remembered. The then chief was standing here listening to the tale of a scout, when suddenly some of the great ladies of Rewa appeared on the top of the bank on their way to the town, and the chief, in order to leave the path clear for them, partly out of courtesy, and in part bravado, sprung backwards over the chasm, though the least slip in landing meant death on the rocks below, or what a Fijian dreads still worse, permanent disfigurement; but all went well, and to this day the spot is known to his tribesmen as "Roko Saketa's Leap".
From here the trail struck eastward across the paddocks to the Waimanu Road, which it followed for a little, and crossing behind the late Mr Leslie Brown's house, came on down Amy Street till it reached the easily-forded waters of the Nubukalou Creek. All the land lying between the Waimanu Road and Walu Bay was in the olden days called Waluwalu, from the kai Walu, or fisher clan, who used it constantly, though they dwelt in the town above. Cuthbert's paddock was called Vunibaka, from a large banyan tree that grew there, from whose branches the spirit bodies of still-born children were supposed to hang by their feet like flying foxes. Toorak was known as Nadruku; and on the east side of the Fiji track, opposite the head of Toorak Road, were the plantations for supplying food to visitors. Mr Sturt's land was known as Naivua, the site of Hon Henry Marks' house and the land about it were called Vunidogolai, while the land from Johnson Street to the Maris College termed Nailawa, it being the planting ground of the kai Naqiomila, who remained at Uluvatu after the others had left for Vatuwaqa, but eventually rejoined them in old Suva.
The ford across the Nubukalou is or was till lately marked by a blasted stump just above the bridge; the reason probably of the crossing being so low down was that it was convenient to the pool of Naisamuni, where the creek falls suddenly into the swamp, below here being in old days a favourite fishing ground of the Fijians. In former days this swamp covered all the land between Ellery Street and the creek, and the present site of the kerosene depot, the creek side of Cumming Street, and a good deal of Renwick Street, while both timber yards were mud flats dry at half-tide, in fact the late Captain Curran gained the Humane Society's medal for rescuing a woman from the cutter Suva that was driven ashore in a hurricane where Brown and Joske's copra store now stands. From the ford the track turned up Knollys Street, and passing through what are no paddocks and half-formed roads crossed Rewa Street to the foot of the steep ascent to the town of Vatuwaqa, now almost impossible in wet weather.
Another track led from the old Navuna towns, Tacirua near Tamavua and Naivuivui near Colo-i-Suva, keeping well to the eastward of the Suvan trail, and crossing the creek well above the Naisamuni fall, and there was a good reason for this for the two clans seldom met but a skirmish ensued. In one of these at Naisereni near the top of the right hand side of the road to Laucala Bay is a gully where Maravola [?] a Suvan was slain, and another was killed in the gully which was known as Kacinavuaka, right opposite Mr Sturt's steps; the object of the Navuna people in these forays was partly pig-hunting and part bravado.
When a Fijian speaks of Vatuwaqa, the always, in old days at least, alluded to the town on Flagstaff Hill, and to nowhere else; it started as an overflow town from Uluvatu, but soon rivaled it in importance.
The position of this place, almost impregnable, was further strengthened by ikeli (earthworks) some of which still remain; and climbing up the steep track from Rewa Street one reaches the spot where once stood the great burenisa (club-house) of the warriors, built here as an aid to the defences, and near it still lies the sacred stone of Radi Vatudavilai. Further on was the town of the priests where formerly stood the burekalou (temple), whose site is marked by the "killing stone", this was also the burial place of the chiefs; and further east was Korolevu, or the main town, with its rara (assembly ground) where once stood the sacred tavola tree, whose twisted root is now in the Museum; and where the mound sacred to Tui Lakawa may still be traced. While near the flagstaff was Nacovi the town of the chiefs, where the mound on which the great chief's house stood is still conspicuous.
The view from Vatuwaqa though differing much form that from Uluvatu is no less beautiful. In clear weather the hills of Gau 50 miles to the eastward are plainly visible, while further north, across the low-lying lands of the Rewa delta, rise up the peaks of Ovalau, and nearly due south the island of Ono off Kadavu is conspicuous.
Off the point on the further side of the bay lies Makuluvu islet, the dangerous Frenchman's Reef jutting eastwards from it; it gets its name from the Rev Father Aubry, one of the pioneer Catholic missionaries, who was wrecked and drowned here when returning from Kadavu, and who was laid to rest in the little burial place on the neighbouring island of Nukulau; ... In the passage on the reef opposite, the Sydney whaling ship Solomon Saltus drifted ashore and was wrecked in 1852. Between here and Laucala Point lies the reef where the shark god Dakuwaqa fought and killed the great sea serpent, and to the eastward of the point took place the naval fight between the great double canoes of Kadavu and Bau where Seru, afterwards known as Cakobau, killed his first man. On the point itself was long a European settlement, with its sawmill and boat-builders sheds, for it was hardly healthy to dwell much nearer Rewa town.
The Catholic Mission would seem to have had a station here at one time, for once when several parties of us were forced to take refuge by the weather at Naqara in the home of that most hospitable of all hospitable Yankees, old Ezra Work, I recollect Father Breheret telling us with glee how he had boarded a French man-of-war lying in the bay, and secured a left-handed sailmaker's palm or thimble, for the grand old missionary was left-handed from childhood.
.
.
The old road from Vatuwaqa to the sea did not follow the line of the Flagstaff Road, but led down the steep earth cliff on the eastern side of the town to the mouth of the creek, crossing the Wailuvea rivulet which flows into the sea through Mr Turner's grounds, where it was known as Wailewete. On the left side of the track was the land called Veiruku, covered then by taro and via plantations, while on the other side of the road lay Veidogo, a marshy flat covered on its lower parts by mangroves, and on its higher by dense growth of ivi trees, but this tract has long since been silted up, the result of floods carrying down mud from the Rewa, and wind-drifted sand, and is now covered with Indian settlements and rice fields. The point where the Flagstaff Road reaches the beach was known as Muanivatu (Rocky Point), and the sandy beach there and reaching to the mouth of the creek was termed Nukuleka. It was the scene of the skirmish that led to the second Vuna war, and the point at the mouth of the creek was called Ucuisinekudre, from the name of the Vuna warrior who was killed in the fray by Koli; and the whole coastline from here to Muanikau was called Dakuniwai.
Right at the mouth of the creek in the pool where the canoes formerly anchored, is a large flat rock on which the pier of the bridge now rests, and having some fanciful resemblance to a boat it was termed Vatuwaqa; it gave its name to the creek and to the great town above, but most decidedly not to the district lying about it; that usage is purely modern.
Anyone who wants to know how well hidden was a Fijian cave of refuge in olden days can try to locate Qara ni Vatuwaqa; if you follow the road past the wireless station towards the bridge till you come to the last Fijian house, and then strike right in along its southern gable, and then go about 50 yards south-east you will see the low mouth of it – that is, if you were born lucky. I have been in it twice, but would not guarantee to locate it again. The mouth is hardly 2 feet high, though of a fair width, so that you have to crawl in, but once inside it is roomy.
A little to the right of the end of Flagstaff Road, on the sands of the beach, was formerly a large flat stone called Kolovia, now converted into a road metal, round which the young braves of Vatuwaqa used to march in all their panoply of paint and training malo, till at length one of them became kalou (possessed by a spirit), when he started in to raise Donnybrook. The fun was never allowed to become too furious, and when everyone's honour was satisfied, the heroes retired to have their bruises dressed by the admiring damsels.
The roads all round those parts of Suva are simply magnificent, and though I wish they would knock off using the hill of Uluvatu as a quarry I must certainly confess that the Works Department are making splendid use of the sacrilegious spoils.
Round near the old race-course, not far from Mr Turner's residence, still stands the old moat and rampart (once surmounted by a war fence) of the town of Muanikau, and fortunately being the property of a gentleman who values everything connected with old Fiji they are long likely to remain intact from the hands of vandals; it was an old settlement of Fiji carpenters who cut out here the planks, keel-pieces, and steering oars for the canoes that were afterwards put together on the white beach inside Quarantine Island, near Mr. Anderson's place. There was no fixed town there, but huts were put up for the carpenters from time to time when canoe building was in progress.
Vesi trees were at one time plentiful on the point and its vicinity, which will account for a carpenters' town at Muanikau; and the little extinct volcano[26] known as Mission Hill, or Delanivatu, whose crater has long since been filled in, was at one time used by the townsmen as a fort, and the land at its foot was known as Niubale. The general name for Mr. Turner's estate was Naiveibaga.
The hill and some of the ground round it was afterwards purchased by the Wesleyan Mission, and the Rev Mr Moore, whose residence was on the top of it, started here a Native Training College, which was afterwards transferred to Navuloa, and eventually to Davuilevu.
After the Suva people had removed from their old hill forts, and built the town of Suva on the site of the present Botanical Gardens, and perhaps even before that event, the spirits after death were supposed to bathe in the little creek called Valeiwai, which runs into the sea at Draiba, and then proceed to Nacibicibi, the point of the sands opposite Mr Turner's house, bare at low water. Here they invoked the spirit of the channel leading from Suva to Laucala bays, calling out "Daveta lako mai, lako main a waqa," and on his approaching in his canoe, the Spirit of the Passage would ask, "Which end am I to put ashore, the vesi (chiefs) or the breadfruit (commoners) one," and on being answered, he beached the end named, and the spirit going on board was ferried to Bulu, the Land of the Dead. The beach about Mr Riemenschneider's place was known as Nasese, from the waves breaking there; the natives say the surf there is now much less than in olden times. This may be due to the gradual growth of the outer reef.
Two roads led down from Vatuwaqa to the old town of Suva, both through Rewa Street, and then one of them forked off through the Hon HM Scott's paddock (Nadrewa), and down Cakobau Road. This one is closely connected with the story of the second Vuna war, but we can leave it for the present. The other followed the line of McGregor Road, and came out on the beach near the Church of England. The land about the Masonic Hall was termed Qoromataka, from the spirit who dwelt there, and whose duty it was to announce the coming of the dawn, while the land about the church was called Vutuyaloyalo, from the spirit who haunted it, as the cricket ground took its name from Tuinaduruvatu, who ought to be hailed as the patron saint of all "stonewalling" cricketers. The old Fijians believed that every copse and stream was sacred to some guardian spirit, but it would be as erroneous to call them gods, as to apply that term to dryads or naiads of classic times.[27] The track then led by the little hill, now leveled out, near the Grammar School, once used as a cemetery and termed Qaranimokukau.
Past the mouth of the creek that flows through the cricket ground, known as Ucukobau from its being the landing place of the Bau canoes after they had sailed past the town with mast erect and streamers flying to the sound of lalis and conch shells, for Bau and Suva were akin and allied, this creek (on the other side of the bridge) was then much wider and deeper than at present and was used as a turtle pond. Halfway between here and the beach, where the Grand Pacific Hotel now stands, was Vunivesi, the landing place for common people, while the beach at the hotel itself was known as Vunimulomulo. From the northern side of the old town another track led across Cakobau Road, called Naisobubenu, from the rubbish heaps that littered it, through what are now the tennis courts – Naiusanimaru – the burial place of the chiefs, where the fiercest fighting took place the day that Suva was burned, by the pool Vailase[28] in the centre of the cricket ground (now filled in) where the women washed their feet on returning from their plantations before entering the town, across the creek Matamaiwati[29] whence the girls carried their drinking water, and on to the high ground known as Vuniivi, where Mitchell Street joins McGregor Road, and from there struck right across by the kiosk in Victoria Park to the ford at Naisamuni.
The site of the town of Suva is now, as has been stated, the Botanical Gardens, its former inhabitants having shifted across the bay about 1882. Twenty-five years ago the moat and rampart were practically intact, but there are now no traces of them left, nothing now remains to tell the visitor that this was once a busy fortified town, nor that in 1843 when it was burned it was the scene of one of the fiercest and bloodiest-fights in Fijian history.
Passing over the raised track across the moat, opposite the lawn tennis pavilion, one entered the town, and right in front towered the temple of the Ro Vonu, situated on what is now the east side of the present little ornamental water, and behind it shaded by nokonoko trees was the mound sacred to Naleka. I doubt very much if temples were ever erected to him for it seems more natural to suppose that the god of the dwarf denizens of the wilds should have been worshipped on a natural mound in the depths of the forest, rather than in a temple built by human hands.
The space near the clock tower was the burial place of the Taukei (landowners), and the present quarters of the prison labourers was called Soso. In later days the gable end of the house of the chief Tui Suva, better known as Ratu Ambrose, was almost on the beach road, somewhere about half-way between Cakobau Road and the leading to Government House, but the bure of his father, Ratu Ravulo, who founded the town was a little further in and to the southward, and close to it stood the house of Lacalevu the high priest of the temple, who with his wife Wasi Rokovakatini was buried alongside it. Though most of the houses were erected for protection inside the ramparts yet many were to be found in the ibili (outskirts of the town), on the rising ground known as Nabuabua, and the present site of Government House then known as Korobaba. The rara (town square) is now the drill ground of the Armed Constabulary, and in 1860 when most of the people had embraced Christianity the inhabitants of scattered outlying villages were brought together, and settled at Draiba.
I have already spoken of the loose way in which the word Vatuwaqa is used, but the term Suva has fared worse. To the old Fijians Suva (a little hill) was the mound on which the temple of Ro Vonu stood, and in which was concealed the sacred stone Vatubulia brought from Vatuwaqa, on which their chiefs were seated at their inauguration, and this mound gave its name to the town – originally the stone was supposed to have been carried by genii from Ucunivanua in Verata. But the name of Suva was never applied by them to any other place. In later years when the sugar mill was erected the place about it was known as Naiqaqi – the place where the sugar cane was crushed, and all from that to the creek where most of the modern town stands was simply Nabukalou. Very probably this name was given to it because the first store and hotel were erected on the tongue of land which lay between the swamp in Renwick Road and the beach, and which jutted into Nabukalou creek nearly opposite to where the rivulet Wainamatabalabala, flowing past Mr Joske's old residence, fell into it. The other end of this peninsula was blocked by a spur of Bishopscourt Hill, which came down to near the telephone exchange, and round which it was necessary to wade until a cutting was put through it, and this cutting not only served as a road, but also as a lighthouse; for when the lights of the original Suva Hotel became visible through it to vessels entering the harbour, they knew that they had cleared the inner mouth of the passage. South of the cutting was once a little beauty spot, all green sward and coconuts, through which flowed on to the yellow sands a tiny silver rivulet, but an utilitarian age has buried the soft, warm sands under the concrete pavement, and the rivulet is only a covered-in drain, and all of the sward or coconuts that remain are enclosed in the ivi triangle.
This paper is not intended as a guide book; it is simply an effort to arrange the stage and scenery for the story that is to follow. Many things may seem but trivial, but I trust they will be forgiven, for I wished to omit as little as possible as I doubt if ever another such account will be written, as most of those from whom I learned the story have long since fallen into that sleep which knows no awakening. I made at first an attempt to blend the description of old Suva with its history, but soon found that the inclusion of the modern names necessary in identifying places jarred and broke the sequence of the story.
[66] Colman also tells the origins of the Suva people and the great and fierce war between Rewa and Bau in Part II of his "Historical Notes on Suva"[30] as follows:
One of the earliest resting places of the Melanesian people on their arrival in Navitilevu would seem to have been Rakiraki and its vicinity, and the Kauvadra mountain range behind it; in fact the name Viti is still said by the old mountaineers to have been simply the word of command given by Degei to his followers when he ordered them to viti (clear a track without tools up the mountain side), they having left in their hurried departure from their older home, or lost on the voyage, their chipped stone adzes, and ikabi (long oar-shaped hardwood knives with which they were wont to smash down the undergrowth); if these were lost at sea it may account for the story of the missing stone chest containing the previous records of their race, which is said to have been lost on the voyage. Had the Melanesians (which I doubt) ever possessed any knowledge of writing of any kind, it is strange that they never seem to have practiced it after their arrival in Fiji.
One party who landed with Degei settled on the mountain at the back of Ellington, which from its position was given the name of Lomaivuna, and from it this clan took the name of kai Lomaivuna. They were probably no worse than their neighbours, but seem to have early acquired the knack of being unpopular with the surrounding people, and were driven southward from their home by an attack of the combined Rakiraki clans.
Their next settlement that we know of was in the broken country to the north of Viria, in the bend of the Waidina, their principal village being on the fortified hill called Navuna, and to the district they gave the name of Lomaivuna, after their old home. It seems to have had unsettled boundaries, and even now I imagine its borders are a little indefinite; and as the country was easily defended and, in parts at least, fertile, they stopped there a long time, perchance for centuries (but as Fijians marked the lapse of time only by the recurring seasons of seed time and harvest their history is innocent of chronology). This custom of giving the name of an old home to a new settlement is very common amongst the Fijians and often when other evidence is wanting, enables us to trace the passage of the various clans from the north, to the south and east coasts of Navitilevu. For instance, the famous island of Bau is said to have derived its name from the former settlement of its people near the Wainibuka River, which in turn may have been given its name from the bau trees growing in the vicinity.
But even in their new home the unpopularity of the kai Lomaivuna seems to have followed them. They became involved in a war with Viria and, though assisted by Naitasiri, they were defeated, and their fort taken, and their chief Tui Colo (king of the hill country) slain. Again they had to trek southward till they were given land on which to settle on the northern bank of the Waimanu River, by the Naitasiri chiefs of Navuso, in the vain hope that they might become useful as a bati (border clan) for their defence; but the result was hardly satisfactory, and one of the last places burned in purely native warfare was their chief town of Sawani by the Naitasiri warriors on their return from the Vugalei war in the sixties of the last century.
How soon after their settlement on the Waimanu River they crossed over to its southern bank, and into the hinterland of Suva is (as usual in Fijian history) uncertain; but cross they did, and pressing back the Suva people founded the towns of Vuivui [Naivuivui], now Coloisuva; Tacirua, near Tamavua; and Vuniveilakou, on the Samabula River, a little above the cattle station of the late Leslie Brown, Esq. It was their pressure at the back that was the cause of the Suva people, deserting the hinterland, and crowding down on to the promontory between Suva and Laucala Bays.
I must state in fairness that part at least of this sketch that I have given of the kai Lomaivuna was obtained from sources that were none too friendly to them, but their subsequent history bears out much of its truthfulness, and it will have to stand till time and money (neither of which I possess at present) will enable me to get further information at first hand from themselves; and it was necessary to insert their story in this place as from now on their history and that of Suva is closely linked together. The two clans were usually at variance, and occasionally indulged in forays and skirmishes, yet they often met together at feasts in each other's town and even inter-married. The story of the migration of the kai Lomaivuna, with but an alteration of names, will stand good for almost all other clans who emigrated south and east from the northern coast of Navitilevu.
The people of Suva have always been on friendly terms with those of Bau and Nausori, and as accounting for the latter they tell the following story. A Suva chief who had no wife, found one night on returning to the burenisa (men's house) at Uluvatu, that there was no food left for his supper, so he determined to take unto himself a wife, for though it was tabu for women to enter into the burenisa, yet they were expected to take to its doorway food for their menfolk. Accordingly next morning he set out for Bau, and stopping for the night at the hill fort at Calia (now Davuilevu), he reached Bau next day, and here as ladies were plentiful, he soon secured a spouse. On his return home with his blushing bride he again stopped with the Nausori people, and was so well treated that he persuaded one of the chiefs to return with him to Uluvatu, where he was made vasu by adoption to the Suva clan, and so the friendship between the two tribes was cemented. Adoption of children was quite common all over the South Pacific, but this is the only instance that I can recollect of anyone acquiring the rank and privileges of vasu, except by birth.
There was one curious custom in vogue in Uluvatu, namely that it was forbidden to whistle inside the town, as it was said to attract mosquitoes; and down below on the shore reef once stood a large block of fossil coral, washed down no doubt at some forgotten period from the neighbouring hills, which was supposed to be the shrine of the mosquito god, and on which ripe plantains were formerly laid as propitiatory offerings; but there is little use in taking out your visiting friends to see this stone now, as it has long since turned into lime, and now forms part of the gaol wall. This deeming of whistling unlawful for one reason or another is of purely pagan origin.
The Arabs maintained that the mouth of one guilty of whistling could not be purified till 18 days had passed and that it was the result of Satan, or some evil genie, touching the person. The Tongans are said to have deemed it offensive to their gods, the people in parts of Northern Germany believed that it made the good spirits weep, and the Icelanders remark to one whistling, "Hush! You do not know what may be passing in the air." The real objection to whistling in primitive times was twofold. First, it was apt to betray the presence of the party on the march, or at rest, to the enemy's scouts; and secondly all clan calls were given in whistling, imitating the call of some bird, and the promiscuous whistler by introducing discordant notes became a promiscuous nuisance. The rest is simply superstition. Yet there is much to say in favour of the German idea that whistling makes good angels weep, namely, that some whistling certainly would, if the angels possessed any ear for music.
The earlier Suva kings lived at Uluvatu, and after the founding of Vatuwaqa the latter town seems to have been the residence of the son destined to succeed him. The list of their names does not run very far back, the first I can find any trace of being called Batileka who married Radi Savasava, and had by her two children, Ro Kesa, who married Ro Limawaqa of Rewa, by whom he had a son called Ro Saketa (the hero of Saketa's Leap). The latter married, amongst others, Adi Moave of Bau, said to have been a full sister of Cakobau, but more likely I imagine of Tanoa, his father. By her he had two sons, Tabakaucoro or Ravulo, and Tuivuya.
Now great Bau ladies, though they had to marry whom they were ordered, had no great liking for chiefs whose residence was on hilltops, for though slight and lissome of form when young, they were apt to become of rather generous proportions when they reached maturity, so Moave was probably not overmuch in love with her new home, and becoming jealous on the addition of a younger bride to the household (Adi Savasava of Tamavua), she retired with her baby son to Vatuwaqa, where the people built a new house for her in a day. She did not enjoy its shelter long, but left with her child and attendants for Rewa, and the house was at once burned down, probably in fear of their chief's anger. Saketa, though he had three other wives left to console him in his loneliness, followed her to Rewa, but was clubbed to death on his canoe at the present landing place at Naililili, and his body is said to have drifted down to Nukulau, staining the ebb tide with his blood. Here both he and Moave pass out of the picture, but the boy Tuivuya, when he grew up, went to Nayau (Radi Nayau was one of his mother's names), where he married. He returned to Suva and lived at Kinoya, and finally sailed from Laucala Bay on a beche-de-mer ship to the Ra coast, where he was killed.
The reign of the next Suva chief, Tabakaucoro, was long and eventful. He inter-married with Bau, and to this day the Suva people speak bitterly of the influence of those great Bauan ladies whom both he and his father married for the withdrawal of the clansmen from their strong hill forts, and the founding with their unwilling assistance of the town of Suva on the eastern shore of the harbour; a step that finally led to his own ruin, and the crippling, nay almost destruction, of his people.
This founding of the town of Suva[31] cannot have taken place later than 1820, and so completely did he strip the older towns of their inhabitants that even the kai Qiomila, who had till then remained at Uluvatu, were compelled to join in the general exodus, and both the hill towns were left deserted save at planting or harvest time, for they still cultivated the food gardens there.
Tabakaucoro ranked as a powerful chief, he was not only Tui Suva, with his following of carpenters and fishermen, but he could from his own clansmen and their allies muster nearly one thousand warriors, and he was also vasu to Bau, with all the privileges that went with that dignity, and besides this all the hill tribes who came down from the north to the southern coasts from Suva to Serua were practically of one stock, and akin to Nausori, Vugalei, and Bau, and this formed a certain bond between them in times of danger, though at other periods raids and skirmishes were not uncommon amongst themselves.
And here we must retrace our footsteps a little in order to more closely connect the history of Suva with that of Bau and Rewa. After the fall of the old kingdom of Verata, about 1811, though its final subjection to Bau did not take place for years after, Bau and Rewa became the two greatest states on the coastline of Navitilevu; for previously though shorn of much of its old power Verata exercised a more or less nominal suzerainty over the whole group, based more on religious than on temporal authority. For years Bau and Rewa had been on the most friendly terms, it was their united forces that had crushed Verata, and since then whilst Bau had become the paramount power in central and eastern Fiji, Rewa had conquered Kadavu and Beqa, and extended its influence westward along the whole southern coast of Navitilevu, till they became known as the yalayala (boundary) ko Rewa. Neither extension of power was affected altogether by force, but partly through war, partly through intermarriage of great ladies, and partly by intrigue. The chiefs of those two great states were closely connected by intermarriage, and the children of such marriages alone in Fiji could claim the title of vasu levu; but now neither could extend their conquests except at the expense of the other, and both sides must have foreseen the struggle that lay before them, yet they were loath to commence hostilities; for while Bau was all powerful at sea, she was weak in land forces where Rewa was strong, but then Rewa was weak at sea; and in any fight that might ensue, Suva and perhaps Serua would side with Bau, while Namosi that lay between them, would side with Rewa, for the simple reason that the smaller states preferred an alliance with a powerful but distant kingdom to one closer at hand, as while it could help them when needed, they ran little risk of being absorbed by it – the simple Fiji native having but little to learn in diplomacy from European statesmen.
As it is often the case when the tension between two States becomes too great, the struggle was precipitated by a trivial incident.
In 1841 Qaraniqio, or Dakuwaqa, brother of Banuve, the king of Rewa, on his return from paying a friendly visit to Nadroga, called at Suva, and landed at Yalayala ko Rewa, the name given to the beach opposite the present armed constabulary camp [Nasova], for as the Bau canoes alone were permitted to pass in front of the town with sails hoisted and flags flying, the Rewa chiefs avoided the indignity of having to lower their masts by anchoring before they reached it. On entering the town Qaraniqio noticed a large pig, and ordered his men to take it on board his canoe; but this prince of grunters, by name "Tamavua", was the personal property of Tabakaucoro, and he knowing by experience the peculiar little ways of distinguished visitors (and they have not changed much since) of annexing anything they could put their hands on, had left strict orders that neither prince, pope, nor potentate was to be allowed to meddle with his prospective roast pork, so the townspeople objected, and his followers being in the minority were with himself hustled back on board the canoe, with parties no doubt exchanging what a certain class of ladies at home describe as "langwidge". In high ill-temper they sailed round the point, and anchored for the night at Dakuniwai, in Laucala Bay.
Had the matter ended here it might have been smoothed over as a "regrettable incident," and peace made by an offering of whales' teeth; but just before dawn when the batikadi (scouts) of Suva were out on their daily task of making sure that the bush surrounding the town concealed no lurking enemy – as is done in all savage countries – one of them, Korotatibi, discovered the sleeping camp, and drove his spear through the chest of Kumu, of Vutia, killing him on the spot, and the Rewans, fearing an ambuscade, embarked hastily, and returned to their capital.
This last insult could only be wiped out by bloodshed, and later in the year Qaraniqio, with a Rewan fleet, attacked Suva; while his brother the king of Rewa, partly to avenge the destruction of some of his canoes whilst on a foray by the people of Tamavua, and partly to make a diversion in the rear of Suva in his brother's favour, sent a whale's tooth by his herald to Kalabu (a Naitasiri town) asking its chief to attack Tacirua.
The Kalabu people took and burned Tacirua by a surprise attack at dawn, and clubbed nearly one hundred of its inhabitants, mostly women, some of their own people who were on a visit there, and whom it was impossible to warn in time, being killed in the confusion. The place was not rebuilt, the survivors removing to the neighbouring town of Tamavua. But the attack on Suva was a failure as the town was prepared, Cakobau, who had information of its threatened danger through his spies, having previously sent word to his ally "to look to his war fences". In a desultory attack some of the Rewa men were slain, and their bodies cooked and eaten.
Nothing now could prevent war, and Banuve, willingly, or more probably unwillingly, was drawn into the conflict, even though it clearly meant war with Bau, and so originated the life and death struggle between those two kingdoms, whose length or results none then dreamt of, except perhaps Cakobau and Qaraniqio, for they were both intellectually far ahead of their contemporaries, yet neither even of them could have guessed that it would only end with the hoisting of the British ensign at Nasova over thirty years later.
Knowing the danger of leaving such a powerful ally of Bau as Suva in their rear during the coming struggle, the Rewa chiefs determined to crush her effectually first. Their initial step was to seduce the towns friendly to Suva from their old alliance with her, and this was successfully accomplished at length, partly by gifts, and partly by promises, no doubt the dread of the nearness and power of Rewa making it all the easier, while at the same time Rewa had to make sure of the allegiance of her own allies. Now the methods of diplomatists were as slow and as intricate in Fiji in those days as they are in Europe at the present time, and it was not till early in 1843 that Rewa was ready to move.
When all preparations were nearing completion a mata (herald) with a tabua (whale's tooth) was sent to Camaisala, the head of the Lomaivuna clan, who was staying at Koroi, on the Waimanu River, to arrange the details of an inner plot.
Now, so far all had been conducted in secrecy, but when Rewa at length sent out the fiery cross to Burebasaga, Toga, Noco, Togadravu, Naselai, Nakelo, Tokatoka, and Lokia, and all of them eager to share in the plunder rallied round her standard, the matter could no longer remain a secret, and Bau took action.
Tuisauwaqa, the Mata ki Rewa, was sent with other ambassadors to Banuve to remind him of the friendship that had always existed between the two states, and of their old custom which forbade either one from attacking an ally of the other, no matter what provocation had been given, without first obtaining consent to do so.
The Rewan chiefs temporised saying that the army was only intended for punishing some rebel towns in Kadavu, and it was only when the fleet was on the point of sailing that the herald was dismissed with a curt statement that the insult offered to Rewa by the people of Suva was so flagrant that it could only be wiped out by the burning of their town – the customary sign in Fijian warfare of the total defeat of a clan.
Tabakaucoro was by no means ignorant of the danger that threatened him, for he had received information both from Bau and from his own spies. He drew in all his people from outlying hamlets, but his former friends across the bay, and down the coast to the west, returned but evasive answers to his call for assistance; and to add to his difficulties just at this juncture a large party of Lomaivuna warriors, practically half the fighting men of the clan, arrived on a visit to Suva.
Now, despite the desultory warfare that existed between the two tribes, such visits on both sides were by no means uncommon, and according to Fijian usage such guests were always received hospitably, and feasts and dances given in their honour; and the Suva chief may even have hoped that they would adhere to the Fijian code of honour which ordained that a host must defend his guests, or guests their host in case of a hostile attack, even against their own tribesmen. Anyway, at the time of the attack they had been already the guests of the town for a week. In reality their presence there at the time was the result of the secret agreement between Camaisala and the Rewa herald.
All was now ready, so the fleet sailed from Rewa down into Laucala Bay, and landed the troops on the mudflats on the Suva side of the mouth of the Nasinu River, whence they marched along the sandy beach round Muanikau, and formed up for attack on the golf links in the Government House demesne, and one wonders if any of those gaily decorated warriors in marching past what is now Mr. Turner's place, known then as Maicebale, thought for a moment of the pathway towards the sandy pit on the opposite side of the track, or the silent ferry-man who waited there.
The Rewa troops had with them a brass cannon, part of the plunder of the L'Aimable Josephine, a French ship that had been captured and burned near Viwa; it was in charge of Charlie Pickering, not Charley Connor as is generally stated, the latter having died two years before at Batiki. At the same time the men from Kalabu, Vuniveilakou, Tamavua, Waimanu, and every town westward as far as Mau, had mustered together, crossed the fords of the Nabukalou Creek, and coming down the track to the sea near the Church of England advanced along the beach till passing through the trees that then covered the cricket ground they prepared to attack from the north.
Many of the tribes who formed this contingent were former allies of Suva, but the fear of Rewa and the lust for spoils had swept aside all ties of friendship, and with the exception of a small part of the men of Lami none stood true to Suva in her hour of peril.
The attack started about 3 pm, or as the Fijians who had not then started wearing wristlet watches described it, "when the pigs woke up", after their mid-day siesta. This was the usual time for an afternoon assault, when most of the defenders of a town would be asleep, and the women would have returned home from their scattered plantations, for in the old wars they formed the chief part of the spoils. As usual the attack started too far off to do much damage, and though the cannon knocked some of its posts about it did not seriously injure the defence, and honours were fairly even till the Lomaivuna warriors inside the town took a hand in the game.
Seizing brands from the hearths, where only the night before they had sat and chatted with their hosts, they fired the town, and anyone who knows the inflammable nature of the materials of which a Fijian house is composed can easily guess how soon the interior of the fortress was converted into a roaring mass of flames. The fire leaped from roof to roof of the closely-packed houses, licking up everything with its greedy lips, and soon "the little flames and lean" creeping up the steep roof of the temple of Navono burst into streamers of fire from its very summit.
In an instant all was confusion, yet the warriors of Suva were true to their manhood. They fought back to back at the northern gate (opposite the tennis courts), one side holding back the Vuna clan within the town, the others driving a wedge into the allied ranks outside. There was neither thought nor time to ask for quarter. The Suva men at length forced their way across Cakobau Road, and on what is now the level sward of the tennis courts they stood in a ring, fighting and dying grimly, that their women and children might have the better chance of escape. In the end a few only broke through the cordon that surrounded them. But if they left most of their best and bravest dead beneath the trees they had at least the consolation of knowing that for every man of theirs who lay there dead, two at least of their enemies had been sent to the nether world. Moreover, they had succeeded in their object, for whilst the melee lasted Tabakaucoro, who with his men was holding the opposite side of the town, seeing that the day was hopelessly lost, gathered his warriors together and with a sudden rush broke through the Rewan ranks and holding them back for a little let the women and children through. No frightened, screaming, nerveless throng were they, every woman seized what food was nearest at hand, and with her own or her neighbour's child on her back slipped quickly through the narrowing gap, and passing the site of Government House gained the old rara, now the drill ground of the armed constabulary [Nasova], their flight being covered by the retreating warriors. Thence passing quickly along the rising ground where now the cable quarters stand [Williamson Rd] they crossed the little streamlet called Matanawati, and found refuge amongst the thick, dark shadows of the great trees that formed the Vuniivi. Here they lay till nightfall, being joined from time to time by stragglers from other parts of the fight.
Looking today from this rise above the junction of Gordon Street and Gladstone Road across at the clock tower in the Botanical Gardens, one is tempted to wonder why the allies, who must now have numbered fully five to one, did not follow up their success at once. The answer is twofold. The Fijian clans, like the Highland ones, would never miss a chance of present loot for the sake of a fight that could stand over till next day, and the town was now in their possession; and secondly the whole place was densely covered with trees, and the Suvans knowing every inch of the ground, it was not easy to tell where they had taken shelter.
Another thing is the Fijians, like their ancestors before them in their long trek across Asia, and during their sojourn in Western Melanesia, were from the very nature of the country forest fighters, and bush fighting allows no room for the Rupert-like charges that lost the field at Marston Moor and Naseby. Only two courses were open in such wars for men who were ignorant of the use of firearms. One was to locate the enemy's camp by scouting, and then carry it by a silent rush, but this would seldom be possible as half of both parties were mostly on the scout.
So their usual resort was to ambushes, called in Fijian lawa ni valu (net of war), and at every move in this game they were past masters, and there was no wile or trick connected with it they could be taught, and as pretty nearly every man's father, uncle or brother had at one time or another been caught in this trap with no better results than to replenish the enemy's larder, it was not easy to induce undisciplined men to risk an attack on a concealed foe.
There was but little sleep all through that long dark night for the people of Suva, who lay on Vuniivi. At times one bolder then the rest would steal out scouting; or one inspired by love (for the true woman no matter what her race never deserts her mate) in the hope of finding her husband, wounded and helpless but still living, would steal through the wood, and such efforts were all the riskier for ever and again the darkest spots were lit up with a sudden intense glow as more houseposts in the ruined town were thrown on the oven stones to heat them for cooking the cannibal banquet, while their own abandoned lali (wooden drum), which but that morning had wakened them for work or play, would slowly toll out the tally of their dead. At length, when the last straggler had stolen in, and just ere the stars commenced to pale before the coming dawn, they silently crept away along the track that led to the ford at Naisamuni [Holland St], and passing across in a mist wrapt spectral file, reached their old deserted fortress of Uluvatu; and as the dawn merged into day, and showed the weary and dejected clan in its full weakness, on all sides could be heard muttered curses as the great Bauan ladies who had induced their chiefs to so foolishly abandon their strong hill fortress to satisfy a woman's idle whim.
But they had little time to spare for idle regrets, for all day long while their enemies feasted on the limbs of their kinsmen, or drank yaqona from their lost plantations, the men must needs repair the war fence in the few places necessary, for the hill is so strong naturally as to need but little artificial aid for its defence, whilst the women under escort gathered in all the food possible from the nearest plantations. When night fell the women slept for shelter in the cave, for there were no houses standing, the warriors relieved each other in parties in keeping watch and ward, for just ere dusk the Rewa canoes of her allies lay in the mouth of the Tamavua River, so blocking the refugees on either flank. Behind them lay the waters of the bay, while to the northward detachments of the Lomaivuna clan lay in laager at Rairainawaqa of the Rewans on the present site of the Hon Maynard Hedstrom's residence, and sections from Tamavua and Noco lay camped between, thus effectually cutting off all chance of escape by the salata, the old track which led to the fords of the Waimanu, and any hope of safety with their relatives in the hill country beyond – the Suva people were caught in a trap from which escape was hopeless. Not all the enemy, however, were so placed, only strong outposts, for there was but little risk of the remnant of Suva's fighting men endeavouring to cut their way through, encumbered as they were by such a number of women and children.
For two days the greater part of the victors feasted, or slept off their orgies, in Suva, for the plantations there were large and fruitful, and the turtle ponds had been well stocked for their Lomaivuna guests, whilst roast bokola was so plentiful that even the meanest camp follower might hope at least to pick the bones after his betters had finished with them; and while the chiefs took counsel as to their next movements, the younger warriors would strut about, club on shoulder, amongst the grey ashes and charred houseposts of the ruined town, giving a not over-truthful account of the valiant deeds they had accomplished, often to be rudely interrupted in their flowing speech by a curt order from the chief to go and dig some more yams, or hunt up a missing pig, for even a Fiji chief can tire of the same old lie for three days in succession. The bolebole ceremony, originally merely a pledge of loyalty to the chief and a promise of assistance in a coming contest, might no doubt degenerate at times into a mere bragging match, but it was consecrated by long usage, and was only supposed to take place before, not during a contest.
As soon as the town had fallen a mata (herald) had been sent by the Rewa chiefs to Tanoa at Bau to state that by the burning of Suva the insult offered to them had been atoned for, and that the war would now cease, but on the third morning the chiefs, with the balance of their followers, moved from Suva, and joined the forces on the heights round Uluvatu.
The night before a counsel had been held round the smouldering watchfire on the summit of the hill in the doomed fortress. The ranks of Suva had been cruelly thinned. Had they fewer women with them they could easily have haled the place, but with over five hundred women and children to feed the case was very different. In vain did Ratu Naileba (the Ulysses of his people) plead the impossibility of taking such a number of women in safety through the hostile country which lay between them and Colo, and urge them to hold out till the enemy gave up the siege; for in Fiji sieges were generally short; if a town could not be taken in a few days, the attempt had usually to be abandoned, owing to want of any commissariat arrangements by the assailants. But Tukevunadawa (known in later days as Ratu Manase) and other leaders insisted that so long as such a large number of young women were cooped up in the fort (for they were the real loot that the enemy wanted) there was little hope of the siege being raised, especially as their foes could easily procure supplies from their own abandoned plantations, and from the Lomaivuna towns which were close at hand, whilst the stock in the fort was scanty, and rapidly dwindling, and that if they could only induce the enemy to accept their isoro (token of surrender) and grant them safe conduct through their lines, the fords of the Waimanu were not so far away, and once across there was a fair chance of safety; besides their fighting men were but few, and weakened by wounds and fatigue, and so were certain sooner or later to fall before the enemy's incessant attacks and then the position of the women would be hopeless.
Those latter counsels prevailed, and on the morning of the 9th April 1843, Korotatibi, the mata ki Vuna (customary herald to Vuna) set out with the usual isoro offering of a whale's tooth in his hand (it was large, and from constant rubbing with turmeric and oil as red as the much prized tabuas of Tonga), and behind him walked one of the fairest maids in Suva, for such was the custom of the land.
She was a chieftain's daughter (for to offer a slave girl would have been an insult) tall and comely; she no doubt like many a maid before and since had her daydreams of the Prince Charming who would come to claim her from her people, for was not Suva the close ally to Bau, where all were chiefs – but such hopes were now passed forever. She had bathed at dawn, and what little oil was in the camp was used to anoint her (the hill men made but little oil), and dressed in all her poor little finery she walked forth to death perchance, if not to worse, smiling as she passed through the hostile ranks as only a woman can smile over the wreck of her dreams and hopes; for in those rough days a girl's life or honour counted as nought when the safety of her clan was at stake. I could never find out, even in the old days, the name of the maid. I think her people made it, not unnaturally, a point of honour to conceal it; and perhaps 'twere better so.
They left the cave of refuge, and crossing the fort passed through warriors, sullen with defeat and the coming surrender, and through the western entrance on what is now the Reservoir Road, and entered the salata; this led south and west of the reservoir, and through the Hon Maynard companions in the feasting in the town, and when all was dark, and the last straggler had come in, and the night was still and silent as the poor dead bodies on the bluff above, Tabakaucoro led the shattered remnant of his clan across the ford at the mouth of the Tamavua, and along by the open shore (for they had little to fear for now) till they turned the jutting point opposite Mosquito Island, and thence along the sandy beach till they reached the foot of the old hill track that led to Colo, and following it up they reached Vunibua, on the Waidina River, in Soloira, not very far from Vunidawa, where they at length found refuge and rest.
Some state that Qaraniqio sent a whale's tooth to their hosts asking them to kill them, but as he never seems to have troubled about the refugees who lived close to him at Vutia the story seems doubtful; in fact, the Suva people never speak with enmity of those of Rewa in connection with the massacre, but throw the whole blame on the Lomaivuna tribe, and its old enmity against them.
After the fleet and army of Rewa had returned home, its chief sent Kovelevu to Bau as herald. For them to have sent a herald there before the fleet sailed asking permission to burn Suva as a reprisal for insults offered them would have been in accordance with the code of etiquette existing between the two States, and the request could hardly have been refused, but then the Rewans would only have found an empty town; but this second embassy after the event, without even the customary tabua, and when their first herald had intentionally or otherwise told a deliberate untruth, was a far more serious matter, and Kovelevu, sacred as a herald's person always was by old custom, showed no little courage in going on his errand, especially as he must have known that a full account of the destruction of her ally must have reached Bau ere now through her spies – practically his mission was to throw down the gauntlet of Rewa to the Bau chiefs.
On arrival Kovelevu proceeded from the landing place and was met in front of Cakobau's house, known as Mataiwelagi, by Tuisauwaqa, the Bau herald to whom he gave his message. Cakobau, who was eating at the time, hearing them speak came outside, and throwing on the ground the crab he held in his hand, demanded, "Who is this man who brags that he has burned Suva?" and Kovelevu, straightening himself up to his full height answered, "I fired the town of Suva". Then the old king Tanoa, who was seated just inside the great Vatanitawake, which was nearby, called to his on to come to him and on his entering screamed out, "Who is going to pay for the burning of my town of Suva", and Cakobau answering, said, "I am not dirt, I will pay in full for the burning of Suva", and Tanoa rejoined, "See that you do"; and how Cakobau kept his word is written across the pages of Fijian history. After the fight and the feasting was done, and the last Rewa warrior had sailed home, the conquerors at Rairainawaqa began to count up what was likely to be the cost of the outing. True they had won a fight, and burned a town, and the subsequent feasting broke most records; but in the cooler moments that followed they could not help seeing that they had mortally offended Bau and gained her bitter enmity; and Bau held the power of the sea, and they that hold that power, be it with galleys of the Roman, the longships of the Vikings, the drua of the Fijian, or the modern super dreadnought hold the keys of victory, especially in island warfare, and so it behoved them to look to the their future safety.
Accordingly the Lomaivuna people, and those of Lami fell back on the inland towns on the Waimanu River, the people of Veisari, then of Maivuso, retired to the headwaters of that stream, and even the people of Mau abandoned their homes and took shelter for a time on Beqa; and for over twelve months afterwards the shores of the bay of Suva were untrodden by man as in the days of the dawn of Creation.
The following extract form the diary of the Rev John Hunt, who at the time he wrote it was on a voyage round Navitilevu, may be given here as it confirms the truth of the story:
"7th April 1843 – We had full view of poor Suva this morning, where we once had a few Christians. Yesterday the town was reduced to ashes, and many of its inhabitants killed and eaten by the Rewa people. We saw several canoes which had gone in search of the miserable remnant. The Christian Chief is still alive."
[67] Part 3 of Colman Wall's paper[32] continues:
Into the story of that war we cannot enter here as it belongs to the general history of Fiji, except where it affected Suva and its people. Almost from the start Bau was successful, but it never followed up its partial successes promptly, and the war did not end till 1846.
Early in 1845 Cakobau began to take steps for the rebuilding of Suva, and the return of its people to their own home. Qaranivalu (Ratu Kini), the chief of Naitasiri, a close ally of Bau, and to whom Cakobau had promised his daughter Adi Kuila in marriage, was instructed to bring them in safety to his place. They came down the Rewa to Nacokaika (a portion of that tribe had formerly settled at Nauluvatu [Suva]) where they rested for a time, and thence proceeded to Navuso, and some months afterwards were taken in canoes to Bau.
Then Varani, the chief of Viwa, was ordered to take his men assisted by a large detachment from Vugalei, and proceed by sea with the Suva people to Nukui, a fortified town on the east coast close to Rewa, but held for Bau by Komai Namana [Cokanauto](or Mr Phillips as he styled himself on the strength of a voyage in a whaler to the United States), the rebel brother of the king of Rewa, where they were joined by the kinsmen under Ratu Naileba, who had been at Vutia, and from Nukui, the whole party escorted by Mr Phillips and his warriors returned to Suva and rebuilt the town, and restored its war fences...
Afterwards the Suva people build a little town, or rather fortified post, at Bawalai near Tamavua, as a check on any future forays of the Lomaivuna people.
The replanting of their food gardens was naturally the first work of the returned fugitives, and then while the crops were ripening they crossed the bay to Korobaba mountain, and felled two great damanu [Calophyllum vitiense) trees that grew on its lower slopes, and built out of them two large canoes; and when they were ready for sea, loaded them with turtle and dalo and breadfruit, and sent them as a thanksgiving offering to Cakobau and the Bau chiefs, receiving in return gifts of whales' teeth and two large bales of tapa each one hundred fathoms long. This was probably the first of the latter article ever seen in Suva, and must have been deemed highly useful...
Things after the fall of Rewa in 1846 seem to have settled down a little more peaceably, and the people of Mau, Veisari, Lami and Tamavua returned to their homes.
After the burning of Rewa, and the slaughter of its king and four hundred of its people, Qaraniqio, the prime mover in instigating the war and the bitter foe of Bau till his death, took refuge in the Lomaivuna town of Vuniveilakau, on the Samabula River afterwards retiring to Coloisuva ...
The Lomaivuna people seem for a time to have been wary of making foraging raids into Suva territory; but about 1850, as near as I can determine, a party of seven of them who must have come down by Vuniveilakau and Kinoya, on a hunt for shell fish at the mouth of the Vatuwaqa River, were surprised soon after dawn by a party of five bati kadi (scouts) of Suva, who crept down on them through the scrub till close enough, when one of their number Koli sprang to his feet, and killed Sinekudre with a blow of his club when, the rest of the Vuna men fled. The victim gave his name to the southern point of the entrance of the river, which is still known as Ucuisinekudre. This Koli was a native of Kalabu, who probably for very wise reasons had shifted his residence to Suva; he was not a chief by birth, but what is known as a tamata qaqa (strong man), a name often used in describing great warriors or natural leaders – the famous Degei seems to have belonged to this class...
It was this skirmish at Vatuwaqa Creek that led to the second Vuna war. But in it the forces marshaled against Suva were far inferior to those in 1843. Qaraniqio was too busy fighting for himself, though he aided them with troops, to give any personal assistance. The towns to the westward of Suva displayed little interest, or were restrained by the fear of Bau; Suva was safe from the treachery insider her own gates (a rare thing in Fijian warfare) and the ranks of her fighting men had evidently been considerably strengthened during their stay in Colo and elsewhere; and even the Lomaivuna clan can hardly have mustered in full strength for the three sub chiefs, Mokabuna, Ritiana, vasu to Suva, and Rolatikau, vasu to Lami, who had led them in the former attack, were absent.
Yet Camaisala made a brave effort. He gathered to his standard most of his clan on the Waimanu, what forces Qaraniqio could spare him, and raised levies from as far north as Soloira, and with these he marched down Coloisuva and Tamavua gathering what recruits he could, including a few from Muaivusu and Lami. The latter clan was as usual divided, more joining Suva than the enemy. From there, avoiding Bawalai to gain the advantage of surprise, he advanced to Vuniveilakau. Next day he crossed the mouth of Kinoya and Vatuwaqa creeks, and passing up the old track and through the ruined town of Vatuwaqa, camped for the night at Matailaivo, the site of the Hon H M Scott's residence. Here in the early morning they started to paint their faces and arrange their finery, for at no time was a Fijian such a dandy as when going into a fight...
Had they only made their toilets quietly all might have been well, but a Fijian seldom does anything quietly, and the sound of their voices reaching a woman who was cutting cott grass the sleeping places in her house near Mr Marlow's residence, where the Cakobau Road first enters through the Naibua rise, she raised the warning cry of the Fijians "Na ivalu", which always denotes the close onset of an enemy, and instantly the town was roused.
First a party of scouts rushed out and quickly reached the Hon James Borron's paddock, lying to the eastward of Denison Road, then called Naidrewe, which in those days was in parts a swamp, and at once got in touch with the enemy. The first to fall was a Suvan named Wogadrau, who not side stepping quickly enough was killed by a spear by Baikorewa [Baikirewa?], then a Lami man, Toalilili, fighting with the kai Lomaivuna, had a bullet put clean through both cheeks by Kurekadua, and then the scouts fell back on the town, and as they did so the woman Aisega, who was cutting grass, called out to them tauntingly, "Give me the gun, and I will go and fight them if you men are afraid", for memories of the awful day at Naca still burned in the minds of the women of Suva, but even as she spoke Tabakaucoro and his men came rushing out of the town. The two forces met just about the junction of Denison and Duncan Roads, and in the first onset the Vuna leader, Camaisala, had a spear driven through him by Koroverela. It pierced him through the chest, the point coming out near his shoulder blade. The disabling of their leader threw the enemy into confusion, and they soon scattered and fled before the onset of the Suva warriors, yet their leader, though wounded, was not abandoned. A faithful few bore him away, but were closely pressed by Koli, Ligasele, the matakibau, and Vita.
Just up at the little cutting in Rewa Street they came to close quarters in the then thick bush. Ligasele was seized by the throat by a Vuna warrior, who was about to club him when Vita rushed to the rescue and knocked his brains out. After this the retreat became a rout. Next day the dead body of Camaisala was found in scrub in Rewa Street, being easily identified by its necklace of sharks' teeth, for whale's teeth, for whale's teeth were then almost unknown in Colo...
After the battle there was a lot of intermittent fighting along the borders. At one time the Vuna people attacked Kalabu, at other times the Suva warriors, aided by those of Naitasiri, raided the enemy's lands. During this period the prettily situated town of Kaukalou, on the Tamavua River, was abandoned and destroyed, The site was a little below the bridge carrying the water mains, and is still marked by a few coconut trees and the large artificial mound on which the temple once stood; Vakalailaibula, the brother of Tabakaucoro, had taken refuge here after boasting that he was the true chief of Suva, but his brother, not seeing the necessity for there being 'two kings in Brentford' had him murdered by some of his batikadi (scouts). It had also given refuge to the party from Lami who had joined Camaisala in the late fighting, and so was doomed and wiped out.
The last time the war drum was beaten in Suva summoning the warriors to the fray was towards the close of the Vugalei war about 1865, when aided by an inroad of the Naitasiri clan on the people of Waimanu they took and burned the towns of Lami and Tamavua and brought their inhabitants prisoners to Suva where they were detained for a while; but as by this time the kai Suva had become Christians their ovens were heated only for feasts of turtle and dalo.
Tabakaucoro married Adi Mili [Mila], the daughter of Komai Naua, and by her he had three children. Rusieta was born in 1852, but did not live long. ... His other children were Tui Buia [Tuivuya, Ratu Avorosa] better known to the old residents of Suva as Ratu Ambrose, and daughter Di Salote. Ratu Ambrose had by his wife, Adi Kelera of Rewa, three children. They died, and left no offspring, and with them ended the race of the old chiefs of Suva. Tabakaucoro (he who evaded the snare of the club of the mountaineers) died in Bau about 1857, and was buried in the old Vatanitawake; it is uncertain if ever he became a Christian, though as he is sometimes termed Ratu Joshua [Josua], it is more than likely that he did; in the missionary records he is always called by his second name, Ravulo.
After his death Cakobau brought the widow and her children to Bau, where they were brought up, but the lady soon afterwards became the wife of Ratu Golea, of Taveuni, and the mother of the present chiefs of Somosomo.
And so ends the history of Suva prior to the coming in of the Polynesian Company and the European. It was hard work getting at all the old traditional history of the town, and has taken up mu spare time for nearly three years, and cost money that I could ill spare, but it was a labour of love, and may perhaps pay back in part the many friendly acts of the now extinct line of Suva chiefs, and of my friends in Suvavou.
THE ACQUISITION OF SUVA LANDS BY THE POLYNESIA COMPANY
[68] Colonel Smythe's Report[33] dated 1 May 1861, though not favourable towards acceptance of cession and cotton cultivation in the Fiji Islands, identified the Suva peninsula as most suitable for a British Consulate and white settlement.
[69] On 12 July 1868, promoters of the Polynesia Company signed a charter in which they agreed to pay off the American debt in exchange for 200,000 acres of land granted by Chief Cakobau. The Suva peninsula lands were part of those 200,000 acres. In 1869, the Polynesia Company subdivided the Suva peninsula lands setting aside 300 acres as reserves for the natives. The Company sold 27,000 acres to settlers who settled on their lands on 8 September 1870. By 1874, 400 acres in the Suva peninsula had been cultivated.
[70] Quanchi, in his Master's thesis[34], described the Suva lands as follows:
The Suva block contained 27,000 acres. Shortly after his arrival on the Alhambra, Brewer advised the Directors that the block could be extended by persuading Cakobau to grant more land along the coast, perhaps as far as Navua River. In the 1868 charter discussions this land had been suggested and the Directors later repeated the idea to Forwood when he was negotiation with the Cakobau government. Meanwhile the promontory was divided into blocks having twenty chain frontages to either Laucala Bay or Suva harbour and stretching for varying distances from a mile to a mile and a half. Thirty nine numbered blocks and a further six unspecified applications on the boundaries of the delineated blocks were approved by the Company in 1873. Later in a rearrangement which took place in April 1874 under the influence of Jacob Brache, several boundaries were changed and three more selections were approved west of the Tamavua River, north of the township reserve. In addition several blocks had been altered by reducing the acreage and allocating a new number to the smaller portions. By 1877 when the Land Claims Commission sat to investigate European claims to land there were, according to the current map of selections, fifty blocks held by Company shareholders.
Selections were made in five ways; actual selection and possession by shareholders who stayed briefly before moving out to other parts of Fiji or returning to Melbourne, proxy selection, selection in Melbourne made at the Company's offices and possession of title through share and land warrant transactions. The result was that sixteen bona fide settlers remained in occupation of twenty-two blocks while the remaining twenty eight blocks were claimed and counter-claimed by persons who obtained title, or who alleged title, through one of several of the methods mentioned. In the course of their investigations the LCC examined the applications of ninety-two separate claimants.
[71] I accept the summary of the Suva lands dealings from the following letter[35]:
The Acting Colonial Secretary
The Secretary for Fijian Affairs
ALIENATION OF FIJIAN LAND IN SUVA
(Your reference letter dated 10.12.62)
As you will be aware from subsequent exchanges of correspondence on this subject, it was necessary for the Director of Lands to have considerable research carried out to ascertain the background and the present position relative to the sale of Fijian land in the greater Suva area, including the area situated between Laucala Bay and Nasamabula.
2. The research carried out shows that dealings in land in the area concerned fell into two distinct periods i.e. those made before the Deed of Cession and those carried out after the signing of the Deed of Cession, the details of which are as follows:-
(a) Pre Cession
(1) As the result of a series of incidents between 1849 and 1855 in which United States citizens resident in Fiji allegedly sustained material loss at the hands of the Fijians, Cakobau as paramount chief was presented with a demand for damages.
(2) Unable to meet the demand Cakobau and the High Chiefs of Fiji accepted an offer by the Polynesia Company of Melbourne to discharge the debt of £9000 to the United States citizens in consideration of a grant of 200,000 acres of land.
(3) The first Charter setting out the terms of this arrangement was dated 23rd May, 1868, and covered an area of land extending from Suva to Navua and inland as far as the Waidina.
(4) This document brought forth an immediate protest from J. B. Thurston, then British Consul, who pointed out by letter dated May 25th, 1868, to King Cakobau that the land was "in most part the territory of Independent Tribes now in arms to prevent your invasion of their country".
(5) The protest apparently caused a variation to be made in the Charter since the adopted charter dated 23rd July, 1868, specifies different lands and the heading "King Thakombau of the Fiji Group of Islands" had been amended to read "King Thakombau of the Bau Dominions". The amended charter appears at pages 257 to 259 of the United States land claims. The details of the method of repayment to the United States Government by the Polynesia Company appear at page 255 of United States land claims.
(6) In the confirmation deed (page 260 of U. S. Memorial on American Land Claims) dated July 13th, 1869, specific details were given for the boundary of the lands to be handed over to the Polynesian Company and the area is shown by the red margin on plan annexed and marked "A".
(7) The Polynesia Company proceeded to dispose of the land by issue of warrants to people from overseas who came and settled in Suva peninsula. At the same time the Company reserved to the Fijians an area of about 300 acres shown coloured orange on plan at "A" together with all Native villages.
(8) By 1874 the Suva settlers were in financial straits due to the failure of sugar and cotton and much of their township lands was mortgaged to James McEwan and Company.
The position of 10th October, 1874, when the Colony was ceded to Her Majesty Queen Victoria was therefore:-
(1) The Fijians in the Peninsula area were either residing on their 300 acre reserve referred to in (7) of paragraph 4 above or in villages outside the present boundaries of the city of Suva.
(2) Much of the Polynesia Company's charter lands outside the Peninsula was still in Fijian occupation.
(3) Most of the land on the Peninsula was occupied by settlers many of whom were mortgagees to James McEwan and Company.
(4) The balance of the land on the Peninsula was unoccupied.
(b) Post Cession
When Sir Arthur Gordon assumed the Government of the Colony following Cession he was given specific instructions to investigate land titles. The first Land Claims Commission was appointed on 30th October, 1875 under Ordinance XV of 1875 and claimants were invited to submit particulars (F. R. G. No. 21/1875).
As a primary requirement in the examination of claims to land in
Suva it was necessary to consider the position of the Polynesia Company and the validity of their charter and the validity of land
titles of persons who had taken up warrants from the Company in exchange for land.
After due consideration by her Majesty's Government the Governor was advised by the Secretary of State that the Charter was not admitted by the Imperial Government but that the Imperial Government were "disposed to receive any claims to consideration which the shareholders of these two companies may appear equitably to possess, and to deal with them in a liberal "spirit" (Appendix C). (One of these Companies was the Polynesia Company, the second which does not concern us here was the Fiji Banking Company).
The purchase money of £9000 paid by the Polynesia Company was paid back to the Company by the Crown.
In consequence of the 1874 Lands Claims Commission's investigations the Governor-in-Council admitted the claims submitted for all the lands coloured RED on the attached plan and subsequently valid Crown Grants were issued to claimants in respect of these lands.
The Governor-in-Council also accepted the recommendations of the 1874 Lands Claims Commission and approved of the issue of Crown Grants for the PINK area. However, at that time negotiations were going on in connection with the proposal by settlers that the capital be moved from Levuka to Suva. The Government at the time agreed with this proposal but expressed reluctance to adopt it on the grounds that by virtue of the approval of claims to the PINK coloured area all the land in the new capital would be in the hands of private freeholders. Government felt that such a complete monopoly would impede the Government in promoting the proper development of the new capital. By subsequent negotiations between the freeholders and Government the whole of the PINK area were given Crown Grants to every alternate lot Government retaining the intervening lot. At the same time as this was done and the decision taken to move the capital to Suva so did Government confirm the Fijian title to the 300 acre lot coloured ORANGE.
The balance of the lands coloured GREEN on Plan "A" were the subject of disallowed claims and were retained by the Crown – presumably in accordance with the strict interpretation placed on clause 4 of the Deed of Cession and amplified in the conversation between Sir Hercules Robinson and Cakobau and further amplified on the instructions of the Earl of Carnarvon to Sir Arthur Gordon (pages 77 to 86 of United States land claims).
At some time prior to 1882 and in connection with the proposal to move the Capital from Levuka to Suva it is apparent that an approach was made to the Fijians of Suva to sell the Government their 300 acre block and in January 1882 an agreement was concluded between the Crown and Ratu Ambrose (Buli Suva) and the nine mataqali having an interest in the land whereby the land was purchased for a payment of a perpetual annuity of £200. The authority for this purchase is contained in Section 16 of Ordinance 21 of 1880.
The Fijians living on the land then moved from this ORANGE coloured area and settled at Suvavou in accordance with an arrangement made by Sir Arthur Gordon (MP.4469/07).
Subsequently the Lami people gave to the Suva people a large area of land stretching from Tamavua river to Lami river and the gift was recorded in Na Mata of February 1894. (See area coloured YELLOW on plan at "A"). (See also extract from Namata at Appendix "B").
There is some evidence in MP.2132/23 that half of one annuity (i.e. £100) was paid to the Lami people in full payment for this land.
With the setting up of the first Native Land Commission to determine the ownership and boundaries of Fijian lands in 1890 Fijian ownership was restored for all the lands coloured MAUVE and YELLOW on plan at "A". There is no evidence of any claim being lodged with the Native Lands Commission by Fijians for any portion of the Suva Peninsula – on the contrary, plan 91122 by Keaney dated February 1905 showing the boundaries of native holdings as determined by Wilkinson around 1892, shows no Fijian land south of the present Suva City boundary.
From evidence in early Secretariat files there appears to have been confusion about what land was actually purchased from Fijians for the annuity of £200 a year (see Mr. Weston's minute dated 29/12/62). Some minutes in those files suggest that the £200 annuity was in respect of all the land known as Crown Land on the peninsula of Suva. In fact the annuity is in respect of the 300 acre lot only and the evidence quoted above appears to make it clear that this 300 acre lot was the only land in what is now Suva City which remained in Fijian ownership. This was the area purchased by the Crown for the annuity of £200 a year in 1882 (vide page 34).
The principle of purchase by annuity was considered and upheld by the Chief Justice in a case some years ago concerning eviction of a Fijian from Crown Freehold Nabuiluva at Nadarivatu.
3. A plan, illustrating the foregoing, is attached hereto as Appendix "A". In connection with the foregoing, extracts from Native Lands Commission's records are also relevant and translated copies of these are attached hereto as appendices B (1) and B (2).
4. Arising from the above information and an examination of the attachments to this memorandum, the following are the answers to the four queries raised in the question contained in your letter of the 10th December, 1962.
(a) With the exception of one lot of 300 acres, the Fijian lands within the present day boundaries or the City of Suva were originally sold by "King Thakombau of the Bau Dominions" to the Polynesia Company in return for the payment of £9000 owed by King Cakobau to certain American citizens. In accordance with her Majesty's instructions to Sir Arthur Gordon and as a result of the investigations of the 1874 Lands Claims Commission and the Native Land Commission of 1890, the freehold title to the lands were confirmed by the Governor-in-Council. As regards the 300 acre lot retained by Fijians, this land was sold to Government by the native owners in 1882 for an annuity of £200 a year.
(b) The native owners agreed to sell the 300 acre lot to Government for an annuity of £200 a year.
(c) The names of the Fijians who were recorded in 1882 as having a propriety interest in the 300 acre lot are quoted in the attached schedule (see Appendix "D"). (You will note that in this schedule taken from cso 264/1882 the Roko Tui Suva and Buli Suva is given as Ratu Avirosa. In other papers this person is referred to as Ratu Ambrosi). The names of the recipients of the £200 annuity for 1962 are given in Schedule "E". These names were checked with the N. L. C records in 1961. No records of the original owners of other lands in Suva Peninsula are available.
(d) In view of (c) this does not apply.
5. 45 copies of the plan referred to in paragraph 3 above are enclosed, for distribution as requested.
(Sgd.)
for Acting Colonial Secretary.
Distribution: D/Lands.
WHAT IS THE CORRECT APPROACH
[72] What is the correct approach to be taken in a case such as this where Native land is ceded by deed? I respectfully adopt the approach taken by the Privy Council in Amodu Tijani v The Secretary, Southern Rhodesia [1921] UKPC 80; [1921] 2 AC 399 on an appeal from the Supreme Court of Nigeria, namely, (1) inquire into what the nature of Native title in Fiji was as at the date of cession, then (2) interpret the words of the Deed of Cession of 10 October 1874 and then (3) come to a conclusion as to what was in fact ceded.
NATIVE TITLE AND LAND OWNERSHIP AS AT THE DATE OF CESSION
[73] How is Native title to be decided? The answer was given by the Privy Council in Amodu Tijani v The Secretary, Southern Rhodesia (supra), a judgment delivered by Viscount Haldane, at p 402-4:
... In order to answer the question, it is necessary to consider, in the first place, the real character of the native title to the land.
Their Lordships make the preliminary observation that in interpreting the native title to land, not only in Southern Nigeria, but other parts of the British Empire, much caution is essential. There is a tendency, operating at times unconsciously, to render that title conceptually in terms which are appropriate only to systems which have grown up under English law. But this tendency has to be held in check closely. As a rule, in the various systems of native jurisprudence through out the Empire, there is no such full division between property and possession as English lawyers are familiar with. A very useful form of native title is that of a usufructuary right, which is a mere qualification of or burden on the radical or final title of the Sovereign where it exists. In such cases, the title of the Sovereign is a pure legal estate, to which beneficial rights may or may not be attached. But this estate is qualified by a right of beneficial user which may not assume definite forms analogous to estates, or may, where it has assumed these, have derived them from the intrusion of the mere analogy of English jurisprudence.
The title, such as it is, may not be that of the individual, as in this country it nearly always is in some form, but may be that of a community. Such a community may have the possessory title to the common enjoyment of a usufruct, with customs under which its individual members are admitted to enjoyment, and even to a right of transmitting the individual enjoyment as a member by assignment inter vivos or by succession. To ascertain how far this latter development of right has progressed involves the study of the history of the particular community and its usages in each case. Abstract principles fashioned a priori are of but little assistance, and are as often as not misleading.
[74] Colonel W J Smythe's Report[36] of 1 May 1861 made the following observations on Fijian society and the use and occupation of land by the Fijians and the settlers:
(The Fijians) principal occupation is the cultivation of their yam and taro plots, which affords periodical but easy employment; sailing in their canoes, fishing, and frequently fighting.
The chief articles of food are yams, taro, fish and cocoa-nuts, breadfruit, bananas, and other fruits, the spontaneous productions in the soil.
Their houses are constructed of reeds and grass on a framework of poles. The floor is the natural soil covered with fern leaves and mats; in the middle is a sunken hearth, the smoke from which escapes through the walls and roof. Apertures for light other than the door-ways are very rare. The houses are never isolated, but are crowded together in towns or "koros", which are frequently surrounded by a ditch and an earthen mound. The natives have raised no permanent structures. Although the coral reefs present an inexhaustible supply of lime, and they have discovered the art of burning it, they make no use of it except as paint and to plaster their hair with.
There are no beasts of burden or draught, and consequently no roads. The usual mode of moving about and of carrying is by canoe.
There are in the group probably not less than 40 independent tribes, twelve of which, from their superior influence, may be considered as virtually to govern it. The names of these are – Bau, Rewa, Navua, Nadronga, Vuda, Ba, Rakiraki, and Viwa, round the coast of the largest island (Viti-levu); Bua, Mathuata, and Thakandrove, or the other large island (Vanua-levu) and Lakemba, among the windward islands.
The rule of the chiefs is absolutely despotic; the lives and goods, and to some extent, the lands of their people are at their mercy. The number of chiefs is very great, almost every koro has one or more. They differ greatly in rank and influence. In many instances there are two great chiefs at the same place as at Bau. Here one of these is called "Rokotuembau" or "Great Chief of Bau", and the other "Na Vu-ni-valu" is the principal personage: but the other places, where similar titles exist, the "Vu-ni-valu", although charged with special duties in the conduct of war, has but little power.
The cultivation of cotton by white settlers is principally a question of land and labour. In a general way it may be said that there is not an acre of land in Fiji which is not private property, the ownership resting either in families or in individuals. A small portion of the land only at any one time is under cultivation, as a narrow patch of ground supplies the wants of a Fijian household, and the custom is to break up frequently new ground and abandon the old.
On the subject of purchase of land by whites, I made particular inquiry of the chiefs at each of the public meetings; the general reply was that an agreement made with the owners, if approved by the chief, would hold good.
In older purchases of land by whites, when the quantity exceeded what was required for a house, the native resident were not interfered with, as no cultivation of land was attempted. In a few recent cases, where the purchases have been effected by the whites who came last year to the islands, and who, with the view of forming plantations, wished to remove the natives from the land, opposition from the latter has been met with. By a clearer understanding with the owners before the purchase was concluded, these difficulties would probably have been avoided.
The general habits and sentiments of the Fijians are opposed to the acquisition of property by individuals. The chief seizes anything belonging to his people that takes his fancy, and as readily gives it away, and the people are equally ready to beg and to give. As the influence of Christianity increase, the rule of the chiefs will become more mild, and private rights will be more respected.
[75] The Report of Commodore Goodenough and Consul Layard of 13 April 1874 contained the following observations on Fijian land ownership[37]:
39. We have made the native tenure and ownership of land in Fiji the subject of attentive study; and have obtained from Mr John B Thurston, and also from Mr C R Forwood and other gentlemen, explanations and papers on this subject worthy of consideration. These will put before your Lordship the state of native tenures, prior to whites coming here. Purchases have been made from natives to a large extent, as will be seen by an accompanying statement, but there remain still considerable tracts of unoccupied lands, though, as is said with perfect accuracy by Mr Pritchard, formerly Her Majesty's Consul in Fiji –
"Every inch of land in Fiji has an owner. Every parcel or tract of land has a name, and the boundaries are defined and well-known. The proprietorship rests in families, the head of families being the representatives of the title. Every member of a family can use the land attaching to the family. Thus the heads of families are the nominal owners; the whole family are the actual occupiers. The family land maintains the whole family, and the members maintain the head of the family."
40. In order to make a purchase secure and beyond the possibility of dispute, present customs would require the assembly of the following person, viz.:- The great Chief or his representative, the lesser Chiefs, and the principal men of the adjacent town. These should walk over the land, define it, and conclude the sale on the spot. The natives should then build a house or plant yams for the purchaser, in recognition of his lordship over the soil.
The strict value of the rights of each party to this agreement varies according to the power of the Chiefs in different parts of the group. In some places the Chief would be strong enough to make the sale alone, and to give possession to a foreigner, receiving all the purchase money and removing the natives by force to the other lands; but, in general, as things now stand, if the purchaser were to deal with the great Chief alone, he would only buy his rights as lord of the manor, or whatever they might be, and would not acquire exclusive possession of the soil.
On the other hand, were he to purchase from the people without consulting the superior Chief, he would not be recognised by the latter, who would probably try to sell over his head.
Since the formation of the Government here in 1871, regulations for the issue of Crown grants have been made and acted upon. Mr. Thurston has asked that the Crown grants already issued may be confirmed, but we are of opinion that each case should be examined afresh on its own merits. Apart from the question of the legality of these Crown grants, which is more than doubtful, we know of the issue of a Crown grant on very disputable grounds. Not more than twenty such grants have been issued.
41. We are informed by the existing Government that at one of the early meetings of the Chiefs in Council after the formation of the present Government, a resolution was agreed to by which all the natives were to be gradually confined within limits of land sufficient for their support, and that all lands outside these limits were to be considered Government property; but nothing has followed this resolution. We mention it again because we wish to point out the dangers which would have resulted had it been carried into effect. To interfere with the possession of land in this way would be to attack one of the oldest and best understood rights of the natives, and would entail the prosecution of a most unjust war.
No Chief had either the right or power to dispose of the lands of the lesser Chiefs and people without their consent, in this wholesale fashion. It is true that much of the land is uncultivated and unoccupied; but, of course, the natives who could show just claim to it have a right to its disposal. The only sense in which the resolution above referred to could be acted upon would be the following, and that only in future years: namely, that after a liberal appropriation of land to a town or village, a small tax should be laid on the unoccupied remainder laid claim to, with the option of selling to Government on valuation, and this could only be done, if the same principle were applied to the unoccupied land of white proprietors.
Many portions of land now claimed by whites are still held on doubtful tenure and are in dispute, either with natives or with other whites, and these doubts arise, either from the incomplete manner in which the purchase was first made by whites, or from the very incomplete survey taken of the islands when the purchases were made; there being some instances in which the purchase was made from the wrong persons, and others in which the title deeds of adjacent properties set forth that their boundaries extend along lines drawn at right angles to the shore. Thus where the shore is irregular, a segment, common to both properties, is included in each title deed.
42. Hence it will be evident that the first step in the land policy of a Colonial Government, will be the accurate survey of the islands; and we suggest that the hydrographic portion should be completed by her Majesty's Government, if the local Government undertakes the cadastral survey.
43. Replying then to the questions which your Lordship has proposed to us.
Q(1) Whether the title to land is fully vested in the King and Chiefs?
A. The title to the land is not fully vested in the King and Chiefs.
Q(2) Whether there are any tribal rights or local customs which affect or limit their power to grant and dispose of it? – A. Their power is limited by custom, though the limits have often been disregarded where a powerful chief has been offered a sufficient inducement by an European, as well as in course of native customs and vasus.
Q(3) Whether it is proposed that unalienated land shall be absolutely surrendered to the Queen, or shall continue to remain in the hands of its native owners until conveyed to private purchasers? – A. It is proposed that certain land shall be conveyed to the Queen, but that all other land should remain in the hands of the native owners until private purchasers, or the Crown itself, become the possessors in the mode we have above indicated for future consideration. It would be most desirable that no purchase should take place from natives, but through the intervention of the Crown, as in New Zealand.
Q(4) On what terms and conditions is land now occupied or owned by white settlers? – A. For the most part, the land held by white settlers has been purchased. But there are exceptions to this rule, in case of land which is called the private property of Cakobau himself, and also in the case of the land under authority of Maafu in the Windward Islands. This is held by Europeans on long leases of forty to fifty years.
Q(5) What proportion of the land in the islands is in such occupation, and what amount remains available for future settlement? – A. The proportion of land in the possession of whites is given in an enclosed Schedule, which we have had corrected from a Table prepared by the Government. Most of the best lands have, of course, been already secured, though not all cultivated; but there remain large areas of good soil, fit for coffee, cotton, sugar, &c., in the hands of natives, in addition to the large acreage of first-class land conveyed to Europeans, but uncleared (as shown in Schedule), much of which would be sold, on annexation, to clear the remainder from encumbrance, and to obtain capital for renewed enterprise.
[76] The new Governor, Sir Hercules Robinson reported to the Earl of Carnarvon on 20 October 1874 on native land tenure as follows:
VI Lala, or Services Tenures
18. Some misapprehension seems to exist in England as to the nature of tenure of land in Fiji and it has sometimes been assumed that because certain services are performed by the people for their Chiefs, the former are in consequence held in a state of domestic slavery. The tenure upon which all native lands in Fiji are held, is precisely similar that which exists to the present day in Ceylon as regards a large proportion of that country – namely the hindigamas or lands of the Chiefs – and the Temple lands- the vast tracts belonging to the Buddhist and Hindu Temples. Upon all these estates the proprietor pays his wages in land, and the tenant pays his rent in labour. The system however is much simpler and less liable to abuse in Fiji than in Ceylon. In Ceylon evils grow out of the undefined nature and extent of the services – which led me to appoint a commissioner to define and register all services tenures – a work which has just been satisfactorily completed; but in Fiji legitimate "lala", as it is called, is well defined, and recognised by both Chiefs and people. It is I believe limited to the services – (1) assistance in hut building, (2) aid in the cultivation of the Chief's garden, and (3) when required for visitors, or in other extraordinary occasions, supplies of food. It appears to me that it would be impolitic on the part of the Government and unjust towards the Chiefs and people, to interfere, for the present at all events, with this system, which on the whole works well, and is cheerfully acquiesced in by all concerned. For many years to come, Fiji can only be governed, as a British Colony, through the instrumentality of the native Chiefs. The effect of abolishing these services tenures would therefore be, to weaken the power of the only subordinate agency available at present for the good government of the country, and the people, freed from existing restraining influences, would give way to their natural improvident and slothful inclination and would become, as pointed out by Mr Thurston in his able and interesting paper of the native ownership of land in Fiji, "useless and perhaps troublesome".
19. I think, that when the Commission shall have decided on the native reserves, the chief of every Qali should be acknowledged as the owner of the land of the Qali, or tribe, and the guardian of the interests of his people in such lands. The people of every Qali should be viewed as tenants of such lands under the chief with hereditary rights of lesseeship, subject to the duties of lessees towards the chief proprietor – to whom they should pay as a head – rent for his support such "lala" as may be mutually agreed on in the shape of labour or produce.
[77] R. A. Derrick in "A History of Fiji", volume 1, wrote[38]:
It has already been pointed out that in Fiji chiefs often claimed that they, and they alone, had the right, as in many cases they had the power, to dispose of land. Take for example a conversation reported by Colonel Smythe between himself and the Namosi Chief, Kuruduadua, in 1860:
Q. What is the law or custom about the sale of land in your territories, so that the purchaser may have a clear title?
A. I alone can sell.
Q. What course should a white man pursue who wished to purchase land?
A. He must come to me, as I alone can sell ...
Q. Do you acknowledge the authority over you of any other chief in Fiji?
A. I rule alone.
Pritchard's analysis of the question, however, concluded that the rights of a chief did not go beyond his personal right in the lands of his family. There was a slight modification to this. Heads of families were the representatives of the title of the family, and the chief, as head of a tribe, represented the title of the lands of the tribe. As the members of the family maintained the head of the family so the families of a tribe maintained the chief. In this way, the whole tribe possessed a collective interest in all the lands held by each family, for every piece of land alienated contracted the total available for the support of the tribe and its chief. Therefore, argued Pritchard, alienation was a collective matter, valid only by act of the whole tribe in the persons of the ruling chief and the heads of families. His investigation of sales to be registered at the British Consulate was based on these assumptions.
Thurston later put forward a slightly different analysis. On his view, 'All evidence tends to show that the lands of Fiji are vested in the ruling Chiefs of tribes, occupied by their subordinate chiefs (or vassals) and people, in consideration for past, present and future services'. This meant that as of right a chief could dispose of lands, though Thurston added that it was his opinion 'that – though submitted to – such action of removal would be regarded as an act of gross injustice, if there had been no failure by such subordinates and people to perform the services required of them'.
In their practical consequences the views of Pritchard and Thurston were not dissimilar. Each recognised the possibility of alienation in certain circumstances; and though, as of right, chiefs, in Thurston's theory, could dispose of land, his modification – that for them to so would be contrary to custom – led him to the view that the consent of others besides the chiefs should be necessary for a valid sale.
Very different was the argument of the Rev. Lorimer Fison, who gave what was to be a most important examination of the Fijian land system in a public address in Levuka in 1880. With one possible exception, the views he expounded had already been reached by Gordon quite independently, and they had served as the basis of the Land Commission's enquiries in the preceding years. The exception was Fison's theory of the inalienability of native land, which, once he had heard it, Gordon was immediately prepared to accept.
Fison rejected any suggestion that land was held in Fiji on a feudal basis, and he denied that the services rendered to chiefs could be regarded as rent. 'The chief is their lord, but he is no their landlord.' 'I am fully convinced,' he said, 'that the tenure of land in Fiji is tribal, and that the title is vested in all the full-born members of the tribe, commoners as well as chiefs; not in any individual, nor in any class of individual which excludes the commoners.' Fison was the first to identify clearly the social groups of the Fijian village: the yavusa, the descendants of the common ancestor; the mataqali, the respective descendants of the individual sons of the ancestor; the tokatoka, consisting of closely related families; and the individual taukeis, the actual holders of the land. The important group from the point of view of land holding, argued Fison, was the mataqali. The town land and the arable land of each koro (village) was divided into areas each belonging to a mataqali. Within this system a chief was merely one of the joint tribal owners. 'As a member of a land owning tribe he has his own joint share of the tribal land; and, as far as rightful ownership of the soil is concerned, he has not one acre more.' Admittedly chiefs had been strong enough in the past to dispose of land, and they might claim that such was their right. But having the power and claiming the right were very different from actually possessing the right. Even in the case of conquest, Fison claimed, the right of the taukeis to the lands of which they were deprived were not lost to them. He was in some doubt as to whether the surrender of a basket of earth to a conqueror amounted to a surrender of rights, but was inclined to believe that it was merely symbolic of a surrender of the fruits of the soil. In any case, where such a token of surrender was not made, the title to the land was unaffected by the conquest. Titles were considered by taukeis to be unextinguishable, though allegiance to chiefs might change as the result of conquest.
So much for native rights over land as seen by Fison. But he went further. Not only could chiefs not dispose of the lands of their subjects or those they had conquered, but neither the holders of the land nor the tribe as a whole could alienate, for nobody's rights were absolute. Taukeis had merely a life interest in the land they cultivated. That interest could be disposed of, but no more. Many tribes had parted with their lands in full knowledge of what they were doing, but they had had no right to do so. 'The land was a public estate belonging to all full born men, and it was strictly entailed, their being posterity of those men to all generations. It is impossible to cut off an entail such as this, for the heir can never be a consenting party.'
FINDINGS ON NATIVE TITLE AS AT 10 OCTOBER 1874
[78] I am not inclined to accept Fison's view of Fijian Native title for two reasons.
[79] Firstly, it seems to me that such a view was largely driven by a desire to protect Native land interests from alienation. This protectionist view was said[39] to be based on two rationales; (1) the need to protect indigenous peoples from unscrupulous European settlers, and (2) the incapacity of the settlers to acquire lands other than by Crown grant. It has been suggested[40] that the first rationale is derived from a British colonial policy that, whatever its justification historically, is paternalistic and acts as an impediment to the economic development of indigenous lands today. I tend to agree. In any event, I do not think that such a view was supported by what was actually taking place in Fiji.
[80] Secondly, Fison's view would have the result pointed out by Derrick[41], that:
If strictly interpreted, according to Fison, no sale by natives could be valid. There were various types of claims to be considered. There were those in which a chief, depending on his power over his subjects or those he had conquered, had disposed of land by his own individual action. There were those in which the taukeis had been consulted, and had agreed to a transaction, but where they had failed to grasp the nature of a sale, and had imagined that they were granting only a life occupation. Even in the latter cases the natives were acting beyond their rights in disposing of their posterity. If the Lands Commission in considering claims, or the Land Board in considering appeals, were to adhere closely to native custom, or to Fison's interpretation of it, they would have to reject all claims, irrespective of the extent to which the purchasers were acting in good faith.
[81] The weight of the evidence, in my respectful opinion, is that Native land tenure and title as at the date of Cession was as follows:
(a) All lands in Fiji were at one time owned and occupied by the indigenous Fijians.
(b) Such lands were communally owned according to Fijian customary law ("Native land").
(c) Such ownership gave exclusive possession and use by the communal owners of the land as a group.
(d) But Native land was subject to a Chief, as head and representative of the owners, having the reserve power to sell or otherwise alienate it with or without consultation with his people.
(e) Having disposed of Native land in this fashion, Native title was extinguished.
INTERPRETATION OF THE DEED OF CESSION
WHAT DID THE CHIEFS OF FIJI CEDE IN RESEPCT OF THEIR LANDS?
[82] The Chiefs' Resolution of 30 September 1874 and Articles 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Deed of Cession of 10 October 1874 are relevant.
[83] Mr Vuataki cited, and I accept, the American case of Jones v Meehan [1899] USSC 152; (1899), 175 US 1 and the Canadian case of Simon v The Queen 24th DLR (4th) 390, 402 as authorities for the proposition that deeds of cession should be interpreted not according to their technical meanings but liberally in favour of the indigenous people.
ARTICLE 1
[84] He submitted that under Article 1, the Chiefs only ceded possession, sovereignty and dominion and not Native title over their islands. He cited the Privy Council decision in Amodu Tijani (supra) as authority for the proposition that the mere act of cession and any general terms of the Deed of Cession did not extinguish Native title of the Fijians. Article 1 is such a general term. He also relied on the later Privy Council decision in Oyekan v Adele [1957] 2 All E R 785.
[85] I accept the submission that Article 1 did no more than cede possession, sovereignty and dominion of the Fiji Islands to the British Crown.
ARTICLES 4 - 7
[86] Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Deed of Cession were in these terms:
[87] Mr Vuataki adopted the terminology and concept of native title recognised in Mabo (supra) and submitted that under Article 4, "radical" title was not ceded and therefore was not extinguished. I am not persuaded by the submission. There is a significant difference between that case and the present case in that the doctrine of terra nullius never applied to the Fiji Islands and, secondly, the lands here were ceded to the British Crown by Deed of Cession on 10 October 1874.
[88] I think the answer is to be found in Article 4 of the Deed. In my opinion, the Article provides for two situations where the absolute proprietorship of Native land became vested in the British Crown, namely, where:
(a) Land "not shown to be now alienated, so as to have become bona fide the property of Europeans or other Foreigners ("Non bona fide alienated Native land"), and
(b) Land "not now in the actual use or occupation of some Chief or tribe, or not actually required for the probable future support and maintenance of some Chief or tribe" ("Unused or Unoccupied Native land").
[89] I think this interpretation is consistent with the views expressed by the Chief Justice in 1875 in this memorandum[42]:
FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE
August 25, 1875. – My dear Sir Arthur Gordon – Since our meeting on Monday I have carefully considered the question of the Ordinance which was then agreed to, and I think it is impossible to pass an Ordinance declaring that the Deed of Cession means what, on the face of it, it clearly does not mean. If there could be any doubt on that point, it would be removed by the 15th par. of Sir H. Robinson's despatch of 3rd October, in which he states that the 4th clause of the Deed of Cession was drawn in that shape advisedly, and that "it would have been impossible to have gone farther than this without injustice, and without giving rise at the outset of British rule to serious disaffection and difficulties."
In another place he says, "If any clause had been inserted transferring to Her Majesty all lands irrespective of private ownership and the requirements of tribes, such a provision would never have been assented to peacefully." I think it is clear from this that it was the intention of the parties to the Deed of Cession that the proprietorship of NOT "the whole of the land within the limits of Fiji," but only that of certain specified portions of that land, should be transferred to the Crown, and I do not see how you can declare the intention of the parties to be something totally different from that which they themselves state it to be. If the Crown will not accept the gift on those terms, but insists on an absolute and unconditional transfer of the ownership of the whole of the lands in these islands, whether in the occupation of Europeans or natives, this, I think, is an act of State, and, as such, is beyond the powers of the local Legislature. It is now, I think, clear, that the proper time for making such a declaration was at the time of the cession, and the framers of the deed appear to have removed the difficulties of the situation from themselves with the result of bequeathing them, perhaps with increased intensity, to those who came after them. Upon the whole, if it be necessary to follow the directions of paragraph 13 of Lord Carnarvon's despatch, literally, by making the declaration there mentioned, I am disposed to think that it should be done by Proclamation and not by Ordinance, at the same time that I cannot see how the transfer can be said to have been made by the Deed of Cession, in the face of such a construction being expressly repudiated by Sir H. Robinson himself.
[90] Further, Article 4, and the whole of the Deed of Cession for that matter, should, in my opinion, be interpreted in the context of the historical events recorded in the above passages, in particular, the payment of the Cakobau debt by the Polynesia Land Company in return for Native lands and the subsequent reimbursement by the Colonial Government to the Company of the £9000 payment.
[91] Thirdly, Article 4 must be read together with Articles 5, 6 and 7. Article 5 gave the Crown where public purpose required it, subject to the payment of compensation and Article 7(1), together with Article 1, gave supremacy to the Crown where Native rights and interests were inconsistent with British sovereignty and colonial form of government.
BONA FIDE ALIENATED NATIVE LAND
[92] I think it is implicit under the first limb of Article 4 that Native title to all Native lands which were alienated bona fide were extinguished and lost forever. Absolute proprietorship vested in the individuals so acquiring such lands.
[93] Further, it would be an artificial distinction in my opinion to suggest that acquisition by the Crown for public purposes under Article 5 on the payment of compensation extinguished Native title but acquisition bona fide by individuals, which must be by payment of compensation, did not extinguish Native title.
[94] Thus, no question of compensation or other relief can arise in respect of such bona fide acquisitions, subject to whether the Land Claims Commission process was proper, an issue which I deal with later on in this judgment.
NON BONA FIDE ALIENATED NATIVE LAND
[95] As to lands not alienated bona fide, it seems to me that the plain meaning and intention of the words in the first limb of Article 4, in the context which I have referred
to above, is that such lands became ceded to and became the absolute property of the British Crown and, consequently, Native title
to such lands became extinguished and lost forever.
[96] I do not think there is any room for the interpretation that such lands were to be held in trust by the Crown for the benefit
of the indigenous Fijians.
[97] As I have suggested above, I think the flaw in the submission lies in the assumption that Native title in Fiji is the same as that in the Torres Straits.
[98] Thus, no question of compensation or other relief can arise in respect of non bona fide claims.
UNUSED OR UNOCCUPIED NATIVE LAND
[99] In so far as the second limb of Article 4 is concerned, I do not think it is necessary for me to express an opinion now on what the Article entails because of my view of the facts in this case, other than to say this. When Article 4 is read together with Articles 1, 7(1) and 7(3), these provisions mean that it is a matter for the Crown to decide which lands were to be acquired for public purposes, and once that decision is made, the compensation is paid and the land is acquired, Native title to such land is extinguished and lost forever.
APPLICATION TO THE SUVA LANDS
[100] It therefore follows that in respect of the Suva lands, all lands investigated by the Land Claims Commissions and found to be bona fide, no claim can be made for them by the Plaintiffs for compensation or any other relief because such lands became the absolute proprietorship of the individual claimants.
[101] Similarly, in respect of Suva lands that were found to be not bona fide acquisitions, no claim can be made for them because such lands were ceded to the Crown and vested absolute proprietorship in the Crown under Article 4 of the Deed of Cession.
[102] In respect of the Suva lands used or occupied by the native Fijians also, I think no claim can be made for them because, as
I have said above, Article 4 is to be read subject to Articles 1, 5, 6 and 7. The purpose for the acquisition of the Suva lands by
the Crown was to house Government and for other public purposes.
[103] I accept the evidence recited above that the only land in the Suva Peninsula that was occupied by the Suva people immediately
prior to Cession was 300 acres which were reserved for them by the Polynesia Company, and for which the Government later paid them
compensation of an £200 annuity and for their relocation to Suvavou. The adequacy of such compensation and payments is a matter
for Executive Government and not for the Court to decide. In any event, it was not an issue raised in these proceedings, and even
if it was, it would be too late to reopen it now either because it is statute barred or because of estoppel. It therefore follows
that Native title for the 300 acres reserved to the Suva people was extinguished on the payment and acceptance of the annuity of
£200 a year in 1882.
[104] Mr Vuataki further submitted that Ratu Seru Cakobau had no right, power or authority to sell the Suva lands to the Polynesia Land Company. Even if he is correct, and I do have some doubts about it, I think it is a matter which is too late to be re-opened now.
BREACH OF TRUST AND FAITH IN DECIDING LAND CLAIMS
[105] In my view, the decision to investigate land claims by Lands Claims Commissions established under Ordinances rather than by the Courts was not inconsistent with or prohibited by the Deed of Cession. On the contrary, I think such powers were granted to the British Crown under Articles 1, 4, 7(1) and 7(3).
[106] Secondly, such a decision was an Executive decision which is not open for scrutiny in these proceedings.
[107] As to the submission that the process was in breach of trust and faith, I think the submission fails for the reasons give in the following memorandum[43]:
PRIVATE MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARY OF STATE
September 1878 – Since I left England, some doubts appear to have arisen as to the exact force and effect of certain words in the deed of cession, with respect to the settlement of claims to land, and it has been suggested that in all cases where a claimant is dissatisfied with the award of the Governor in Council, his claim should be decided by the ordinary action of the courts of law.
I strongly deprecate any change in the system for the settlement of land titles recommended by Sir Hercules Robinson, accepted by the natives and settlers at the time of cession, deliberately adopted by Her Majesty's Government in 1875, and ever since that date practically acted on by the local government in Fiji.
I am prepared, and should wish to support, my objection to such change by abundant illustrations, and by subsidiary reasons not now put forward. But in the present Memorandum (which is not a formal or official exposition of my views), my object is conciseness, and I therefore confine myself to a bare enumeration of the chief grounds on which my opinion is based.
I consider that a virtual (though probably not a technical) breach of faith would be involved in any measure which transferred to the Law Courts the cognisance of land claims. Of the intention of those who framed, and those who executed, the deed of cession, there can be no doubt whatever.
That of Sir Hercules Robinson is clearly to be gathered from his Despatches of October 1874 to the Secretary of State, and is explicitly stated in a recent letter to me, which encloses one from Sir George Innes (who drew the deed of cession), explaining the meaning which he intended and still believes his words to convey. Copies of these letters are appended.
That the language of the deed was understood in the same sense by Cakobau and his Chiefs, and by Mr. Thurston and Mr. Wilkinson acting on their behalf, is equally certain.
Lord Carnarvon's Despatch of March 4, 1875, interpreting the deed in a similar manner, has been published throughout Fiji; and I have solemnly declared, over and over again, Her Majesty's decision as to the mode in which claims to land should be considered. Any intimation now made that, if the decision of the Governor in Council in any case be adverse, the claimant may seek to obtain more favourable consideration from a court of law, would undoubtedly (and not, I think, unreasonably) be held to be a breach of faith, and would shake to its very foundation the confidence which the natives have gradually learnt to repose in the fairness and friendliness of the Government.
There would be great inconvenience in imposing on a court of law the decision of questions which can hardly be determined except locally. It is not points of law, but questions of fact, that are usually at issue, and in the great majority of cases the dispute is, not whether a piece of land has been sold, but as to what are the boundaries to be assigned to it. The delimitation of boundaries is a matter which, as is recognised at home, may be far more satisfactorily performed by such a commission as the Enclosure Commission than by a law court. That, in spite of the natural tendency of courts and lawyers to seek to extend their jurisdiction, the Chief Justice of Fiji should be quite as decidedly opposed as myself to the reference to a law court of existing land claims, is grave testimony to the unsuitableness of such courts for their decision.
3. To the white settlers whose claims have been already allowed, the possible revision of those claims by a court of law would be in many cases disastrous, and would in all cases introduce an element of doubt into their title. Claims have been allowed by the Governor in Council on grounds of occupancy, convenience, etc., which might not hold good in law, and on the faith of the presumed finality of this settlement large sums of money have been, in some cases, expended by those who have been admitted as proprietors.
The local government would, it seems to me, be bound in equity to protect those who had acted on the faith of its guarantee. As an illustration of what I mean, I may mention that the surveys effected for the Lands Commission have shown that in many cases estates overlap, and that portions of the same land have thus in bona-fide ignorance been sold to two or more persons. The Governor in Council has in such cases divided the land between the different claimants in such a manner as in the varying circumstances of each case seemed equitable. A court of law would, I apprehend, in all, or almost all, cases be bound to admit the claims of the first purchaser, should he put them forward.
To those whose claims have not yet been heard the reference to a legal decision would in many cases be a hardship, as they would assuredly not receive the same indulgence as has been shown to those whose cases have been dealt with by the Governor in Council; and if in consideration of the facts just mentioned all claims already sanctioned by the Governor in Council were confirmed, they would have a fair ground for complaint that their neighbour's claims and their own had not been dealt with or an uniform system.
4. I have, so far, dealt only with the injury likely to be experienced by white settlers; but it is to the native landowners and vendors that the greatest injustice would be done by the contemplated change. It is not only that in some cases I have no doubt a claim, prima facie legal, exists, which has probably no foundation in equity, but that there would be the greatest difficulty in bringing the native case before the court. Every lawyer in the Colony is personally interested in land claims, and would be an unwilling agent in disputing them. This, however, is but a minor difficulty. What is more serious is that the natives, generally speaking, have neither the means, nor the knowledge, requisite to employ counsel, and that an appeal by a white claimant to the Supreme Court would be practically undisputed. The extreme unwillingness of the natives to resort to the European law courts, and their profound distrust of them, do not admit of dispute, nor can I convey to any one unacquainted with the country any idea of the exceeding difficulty (amounting to a practical impossibility), of inducing them to prefer cases, or to produce witnesses. This reluctance is strongest among the natives of the interior, whose interest it is most important to guard. If it be urged that the Government might take up the cases on behalf of the natives, I would reply –
1st. That such a course would be attended with enormous expense; and
2nd. That it would place the Government in a most undesirable position of antagonism to the white claimants, instead of allowing it to hold, as it does now, the place of an impartial and equitable arbitrator.
Moreover, though the Government can procure the attendance of witnesses before a local commission, it would be next to impossible to bring those from the mountains before the Supreme Court at Levuka.
5. To these considerations I must add, that, besides being inevitably attended with enormous practical wrong to the natives, the consequences of a reference to the legal tribunals, and of the real though unintentional hardships which would thereby be inflicted on the native proprietors, might be in the highest degree dangerous.
It must not be forgotten that the natives hold their estates by well defined though often very complicated tenures; that they are very jealous of the ownership of their hereditary land; that they will not regard with indifference the substitution of a new tribunal for that which has already dealt with the land question, and which they know and trust; and that if they find themselves, by the action of a new tribunal, deprived of what they hold to be theirs, they will regard the whole transaction as a fraudulent piece of jugglery on the part of Government. The almost inevitable result of this would be, sooner or later, an outbreak of a general and serious character, the suppression of which would prove very costly and very tedious, which would throw back for years (if it did not wholly destroy) the growing prosperity of the Colony, and which would result in the ultimate extirpation of the native race.
In short, then, I consider that the proposed change would sacrifice the substance of justice to its form, and for the sake of a literal adherence to words, the strict meaning of which may be open to question, would disregard their acknowledged intention, whilst a mode of proceedings would be established which must be infinitely more dilatory than that now in use, which is far less likely to determine correctly respecting questions of boundary, and which would practically give an enormous and undue advantage to white purchasers over the native vendors.
I therefore strongly recommend that the mode of dealing with land claims prescribed by Her Majesty's Government in 1875 be maintained, and that if it be thought necessary to remove any doubts on the matter, a declaratory Ordinance should be passed defining the meaning of the deed of cession to be that which it was intended to bear, using for that purpose the language of Lord Carnarvon's Despatch of March 4, 1875.
At the same time it may perhaps be admitted that a power of revision may in some cases be desirable, and I believe that such an arrangement as would satisfy nearly all those who desire a rehearing of their claims might be effected, without bringing the law courts into operation, and without substantial injustice to the natives, or to those settlers whose claims have already been allowed.
Should Her Majesty's Government be disposed to attach weight to the considerations urged in this Memorandum, I shall be prepared to submit the outline of an Ordinance to provide for such revision.
A.H.G
August 2, 1878 – My dear Gordon – In compliance with your request, I was just about to write and explain fully what my intention was in framing the 4th clause of the deed of cession, when I found, on looking over the Bluebook, that what I meant to provide for by that clause, and the mode in which I thought that provision ought to be carried into effect, are points fully explained in the 15th paragraph of my Despatch of the 28th October 1874 (see pages 4 and 50 of Blue-book). I do not see that I can now add anything to make my intention more clear. The view you take is precisely what was in my mind at the time the deed of cession was being framed; and the plan which I understand has been carried out for the last three years is, I believe, substantially in unison with the course recommended by me in my Despatch of the 20th October 1874, above referred to.
I do not think that the meaning of clause 4, even taken by itself, admits of reasonable doubt. The words "shown to be" were not in the original draft, but were inserted in the revised copy for the purpose of throwing the onus of proof of alienation on the claimants; my feeling being that whilst it would have been unjust to confiscate lands which had before the cession become bona-fide private property, it was necessary to leave it entirely to the Government to decide, in each case, whether the property claimed had, or had not, been fairly acquired.
The contention you refer to, of those whose claims have since been disallowed – that "every claim is to be considered good unless by an action brought on behalf of the Crown it is pronounced in the Supreme Court not to be so" – appears to me untenable. At all events my intention in framing the deed of cession was exactly the reverse, viz. that the proprietorship should be vested in the Crown unless a claim were advanced which on investigation was shown to the satisfaction of the Crown to be good, in which case the title would be confirmed by the issue of a Crown grant to the Claimant. If I had intended the onus of proof of non-alienation to be thrown on the Government, I should have used the words "shown not to be" instead of "not shown to be."
I never contemplated that the investigation into land claims would be made by a court of law, but recommended that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into the merits of each claim, and to report upon the validity of European titles (see par. 15 of 20th October 1874).
I enclose a note which I have received from Sir George Innes concurring in the view taken by you as to the intention with which the 4th clause was framed. – Yours very truly,
HERCULES ROBINSON.
Sir George Innes to Sir H. Robinson
CHAMBERS, ELIZABETH STREET, July 29, 1878. – My dear Sir Hercules – In accordance with your wish, I have read Sir Arthur Gordon's note of the 14th with reference to the "claims to land" question in Fiji, and I quite concur in the view he takes as to the intention with which the 4th clause of the deed of cession was framed.
The clause itself, without any aid from clause 7, in my opinion clearly expresses that intention, and the onus of proof of alienation is manifestly thrown upon the claimant in each case. It seems to me simply absurd to contend for any other construction of the 4th clause.
[108] I respectfully accept the view expressed in the above despatches and therefore find that there is no factual or legal basis to support the submission that there was a breach of trust or faith in the establishment of Lands Claims Commissions to decide land claims or in their processes.
FISHING RIGHTS CLAIM
[109] The Plaintiffs claim that the State, through its Minister and Director of Lands, by declaring that the waters surrounding the Suva peninsula and the soil underneath belonged to the State and leasing them out, continued to defraud the Plaintiffs and deprive them of income and compensation.
[110] I think such a claim is unsustainable in light of Articles 1 and 7(1) of the Deed of Cession.
CONCLUSIONS
[111] In summary, I have come to the following conclusions.
Native Title
[112] Native land tenure and title as at the date of Cession was as follows:
(f) All lands in Fiji were at one time owned and occupied by the indigenous Fijians.
(g) Such lands were communally owned according to Fijian customary law ("Native land").
(h) Such ownership gave exclusive possession and use by the communal owners of the land as a group.
(i) But Native land was subject to a Chief, as head and representative of the owners, having the reserve power to sell or otherwise alienate it with or without consultation with his people.
(j) Having disposed of Native land in this fashion, Native title was extinguished and lost for ever.
Lands vested in the State
[113] Article 4 of the Deed of Cession provides for two situations in which absolute proprietorship of Native land became vested in the British Crown, and Native title is extinguished, namely, where:
(c) Land "not shown to be now alienated, so as to have become bona fide the property of Europeans or other Foreigners ("Non bona fide alienated Native land"), and
(d) Land "not now in the actual use or occupation of some Chief or tribe, or not actually required for the probable future support and maintenance of some Chief or tribe" ("Unused or Unoccupied Native land").
Lands Claims Commissions
[114] The decision to investigate land claims by Lands Claims Commissions established under Ordinances rather than by the Courts was not inconsistent with or prohibited by the Deed of Cession. On the contrary, I think such powers were granted to the Crown under Articles 1, 4, 7(1) and 7(3).
[115] Further, there has been no breach of trust or faith by the British Crown in the carrying out of the land claims process.
Native Title lost for bona fide claims
[116] Native title in respect of the bona fide alienated areas in the Suva peninsula were extinguished and lost for ever by virtue of Article 4. Such lands became the absolute property of the individuals who acquired them.
Native Title lost for non bona fide claims
[117] As to lands not alienated bona fide, it seems to me that the plain meaning and intention of the words in the first limb of Article 4 is that such lands became ceded to and became the absolute property of the British Crown and, consequently, Native title to such lands became extinguished and lost forever.
Native Title lost for the Reserve Area
[118] As at the date of Cession, the only area in actual use and occupation by the Plaintiffs in the Suva peninsula was the 300 acres reserve.
[119] Native title to the 300 acres reserve was extinguished by virtue of Articles 4 read together with Articles 1, 5, 6 and 7 as lands acquired by the Crown to house Government and for other public purposes for which compensation and other benefits had been given to the Plaintiffs.
Native Title lost for the Fishing Rights Area
[120] Native title was lost to the Fishing Rights area by virtue of Articles 1 and 7(1) of the Deed of Cession.
Final result
[121] The final result is that Native title to all of the Suva peninsula lands have
been extinguished and all of the Plaintiffs claims must therefore fail and the relief
sought by them is refused.
COSTS
[122] The Defendants would normally be entitled to their costs. However, they used in-house counsel and are in a better position to absorb the costs in this case so I make no order as to costs.
FINAL ORDERS
[123] The Orders are as follows:
............................................................
Sosefo Inoke
Judge
[1] Exhibit D3: A M Quanchi: “This Glorious Company: The Polynesia Company in Melbourne and Fiji”, Masters Degree Thesis,
Monash University 1977
[2] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) 175 CLR 1.
[3] NLTB publication “Vanua”, Issue One, 1997.
[4] Fiji Constitution Amendment Act 1997 Revocation Decree 2009
[5] Exhibit D3:
[6] Exhibit P15, tab 3, p 49-51.
[7] I, Thakombau, King of Fiji, &c.
[8] Vide “Her Majesty’s Commissioner’s Report of Inquiry into Thakombau’s ability to convey to Her Majesty’s
Government 200,000 acres of land
[9] Exhibit P16, tab 2, p 26
[10] Exhibit P16, p 76
[11] Exhibit D3, p 106
[12] Referred to in the thesis as the group of “Forties”.
[13] Exhibit D6, tab 5.
[14] Exhibit P16, tab 2, p 26
[15] Exhibit P16, p 32
[16] Exhibit P26, p 41
[17] Ibid, p 13
[18] Exhibit P16, tab 5, p 53
[19] Ibid
[20] Exhibit P16, tab 4, p 51
[21] Exhibit P16, tab 3, p 42
[22] Exhibit P16, tab 3, p 43
[23] Exhibit P14, Parts 1& 2, tabs 1& 2, p 15; “Historical Notes on Suva (Part 1) and (Part 2)” edited by Paul Geraghty.
[24] Op. cit, Part 2, p 28.
[25] Op. cit, Part 1, p 15 onwards.
[26] The author is assured by Peter Rhodda, of the Mineral Resources Department, that there is no volcano in that vicinity, so it must
have been a different natural feature shaped like a volcano.
[27] In ancient Greek mythology, dryads were wood-nymphs and naiads water-nymphs.
[28] Probably a misprint for Wailase.
[29] Probably should be Matameiwati.
[30] Exhibit P14, Part 1, tab 1, p 28.
[31] The author’s note: This combined village, where Thurston Gardens now stands, is usually referred to in contemporary accounts
simply as “Suva. The specific name of the site is said by some present-day Suva people to have been Solia. There are Solia
people living today in Suvavou, and also in Mau and Sawani (Vuna).
[32] Exhibit P14, tab 3, p 50.
[33] Exhibit P16, tab 1, p 17
[34]Exhibit D3, Pp 176-7.
[35] Exhibit P16, p 176-9; and Exhibit D6, tab 5 – Report of Dir of Lands to the Colonial Secretary, 8/3/1963.
[36] Exhibit P16, tab 1, p 14
[37] Exhibit P16, tab 2, p 35, paras 39, 40
[38] Defendant’s Submissions – Part 1B, p 189-90.
[39] An article by Kent McNeil, “Self-government and the inalienability of Aboriginal Title”, July 2001, in the Defendant’s
Submissions Part 1B.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Defendant’s Submissions – Part 1B, p 192
[42] Exhibit P16, p 89-90.
[43] Exhibit P16, pp 94-96
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2010/563.html