« ZurückWeiter »
To wander through life :
With white foaming surf. That is, it is preparing to depart from the north cape to the realm of spirits.
The manner in which the New Zealanders addressed the spirits of their ancestors in times of trouble is shown by the following chant to Ruaimoko, an ancestor of a tribe who were so oppressed by the number of their enemies that they found they should be compelled to abandon their territory to their foes :
Now that earthquakes shake the world,
Whither can we fly? fly?
Make it firm !
Firm, firm, firm-Ha ! A grandfather thus laments the loss of his little grandson, who perished from some accident:
My grandchild, my grandchild!
Why strayed you from me?
Left you my side ?
To the houses of spirits so full !
Which trouble life so.
We all know you sprang
Such high renown.
The movers of spirits, for evil and good.
Pray deal not unkindly
That's fallen from its nest.
And your mother-of-pearl ;
Whilst I am left here,
To waste in my house. Sometimes the New Zealanders, in their laments and chants for their dead chiefs, passed suddenly from expressions of the greatest tenderness to ferocious threats and taunts against those who had either directly or remotely been the cause of their deaths, as in the following extract from a chant:
Oh that thou wert but larger,
And his tribe.
Such expressions closely resemble the taunts of the ancient Mexicans to their enemies, as described by Bernal Diaz, who states that, in battle, they used to insult their foes by throwing to them the roasted flesh they had been eating, shouting out — "Eat of the flesh of these Teules, and of your brothers, for we are quite satiated with it!”
Again, in the following lament for Te Pehitahanga, a wild change from tenderness to ferocity also takes place. Te Pchitahanga was a young chief of Waikato, who fell in an unsuccessful attack upon a fortress, called Te Kawau, belonging to the chiefs Tupoki and Raparapa. The lament is supposed to be sung by Te Pehitahanga's wife, the tribe joining in the chorus. The object was to rouse the tribe to another assault upon the fortress of Tupoki and Raparapa. It was afterwards used upon all similar occasions :
They came to search for my love, oh! oh!
Cry aloud for war,-oh! oh! oh-h-h!
Now, alas ! thou dost lie,
At Shumotokia !
Whence not one escaped.
That jumps, and that flings,
Alas! alas! alas !
Now the companion
Alas! alas ! alas! I will venture to add a portion of one other lament, in explanation of the opinions held by the New Zealanders in relation to the state of the dead.
A chief named Whakatere was the relative of a great chief named Paekawa, and was one of his greatest warriors. Whakatere having, with a number of his tribe, fallen in battle, his widow, Karanga, composed a lament for him, which ended as follows:
The ear-drop of jade,
Of Mount Tongariro.
The spirits await you.
THE LAND QUESTION.
Part II.—FEUDAL TENURES IN ENGLAND. In my last article I pointed out, as the root of the wrongs of Ireland, as regards the land question, the fact that when, after the Rebellion, English tenures were nominally introduced into Ireland, security of tenure was not given to the peasantry. I showed that the manorial system introduced was such only in name; that where manors were introduced, they were counterfeit manors ; that the Irish peasant farmers were treated not as copyholders but as if they had no rights of tenure at all. But I tried to show, further, that their rights being ignored by Irish land-law and landlords for two centuries did not alter the fact of their existence. Descendants or successors of them still to this day are struggling against the attempt of Irish landlords and land-law to treat them as what they are not-as mere commercial tenants under contracts. And the conclusion I pointed out was that now, at this eleventh hour, Mr. Gladstone has had, it would seem, the task imposed upon him by the British nation of inventing two new tenures, one to meet the needs of the commercial farming tenants—and the other to fit the far more difficult and delicate case of the peasant hereditary holders.
Now it will readily be seen that it would be a very important point gained, if it could be shown that what justice obliges us to do for Ireland, can be done upon principles recognised in England, and in such a way as to strengthen, instead of in any the least degree to undermine the rights of property in England. And this is what I think a careful review of the history of the relations of the English people to the English land must show.
For in the first place, as to the commercial class of tenant farmers, it will confirm what I have before pointed out, that tenant farmers in England who have no leases and no sufficient covenants to protect them, stand in need of the same protection (though not perhaps to the same degree) as Irish tenant farmers.
And in the second place, it will show that even the recognition of peasant tenures, which I have said, in justice, imply something approaching to security of tenure, need not shock the nerves of English landowners, inasmuch as the peasant class in England have already had that security of tenure which is now about to be given to the peasant tenants of Ireland. So that there is, in fact, no class of tenants in England who can have any possible right to rise up and say, “What you are doing for the peasant tenant of Ireland you must do also for me.”