lands. In this he appears to have followed the ancient practice
invariably observed on the conquest of an island.[17] For "from the
earliest periods of Hawaiian history, the tenure of lands has been, in
most respects, feudal. The origin of the fiefs was the same as in the
northern nations of Europe. Any chieftain who could collect a sufficient
number of followers to conquer a district, or an island, and had
succeeded in his object, proceeded to divide the spoils, or 'cut up the
land,' as the natives termed it. The king, or principal chief, made his
choice from the best of the lands. Afterwards the remaining part of the
conquered territory was distributed among the leaders, and these again
subdivided their shares to others, who became vassals, owing fealty to
the sovereigns of the fee. The king placed some of his own particular
servants on his portion as his agents, to superintend the cultivation.
The original occupants who were on the land, usually remained under
their new conqueror, and by them the lands were cultivated, and rent or
taxes paid."[18]

[17] C. S. Stewart, _op. cit._ p. 97; W. Ellis, _op. cit._ iv.
412 _sq._, 414; J. J. Jarves, _op. cit._ p. 33. Compare J. Cook,
_Voyages_, vii. 137 _sqq._

[18] Ch. Wilkes, _op. cit._ iv. 34.

Below the chiefs or nobles were the commoners, who included small
farmers, fishermen, mechanics, such as house-builders and
canoe-builders, musicians and dancers, in short, all the labouring
classes, whether they worked for a chief or farmer or cultivated patches
of land for their own benefit.[19] According to one account, "the common
people are generally considered as attached to the soil, and are
transferred with the land from one chief to another."[20] But this
statement is contradicted by an earlier and perhaps better-informed
writer, who spent some thirteen months in Oahu, while the islands were
still independent and before the conversion of the people to
Christianity. He tells us that commoners were not slaves nor attached to
the soil, but at liberty to change masters when they thought proper.[21]
On this subject Captain King observes: "How far the property of the
lower class is secured against the rapacity and despotism of the great
chiefs, I cannot say, but it should seem that it is sufficiently
protected against private theft, or mutual depredation; for not only
their plantations, which are spread over the whole country, but also
their houses, their hogs,