This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1879 edition. Excerpt: ... THE INTERESTS OF THE CHIEFS. 83 ward as soon as the contemplated registry was completed. Before passing to a consideration of the objections in detail which the honourable member had brought forward, the Queen's Advocate reminded the Counoil that if tenants were bound to render services to the chiefs, so the chiefs were bound to render services to the king. We gave up the latter in 1832, but allowed the chiefs to retain the former. This point seemed to have been quite lost sight of by the chiefs and priests who had petitioned against the measure and by the honourable member. He would now briefly advert to the objections in detail. First, he objected to the definition of Faraweni. It was taken from Sir Charles Marshall who not only spoke on his own authority but on that of Sir John D'Oyley and other lawyers. Mr. Coomaba Swamy: I did not question the definition. The chiefs and priests do. The Queen's Advocate regretted that on such a question the honourable member did not represent his own views. The authority of the chiefs and priests could not be relied upon, particularly in face of their statement that a Sannas or Tudupota was indispensable to constitute a Faravani tenant. He had been thirty years in practice and had been concerned in numbers of service cases--he did not know of a single one in which a tenant held a Sannas or Tudupota. He would not say that the case was one altogether unknown, but it was one at least of very rare occurrence. The next objection of the honourable member was that tenants had the right to demand commutation whether the landlord consented to it or not. If the two consented we wanted no law, but inasmuch as we desired to move tenants to get rid of their serfdom it would have been fatal to such an object if...