of their personal estate. But, strange as it may appear, they have also their real estates. Ben-nil-long gave repeated assurances that the island Me-mel (known at the settlement by the name of Goat Island), close by Sydney Cove, was his own property; that it had been his father's, and that he should give it to By-gone, his particular friend and companion. To this little spot he appeared much attached. He likewise spoke of other persons who possessed this kind of hereditary property, which they retained undisturbed."[1]
In Fraser's Island (Great Sandy Island) it is said that there are parts of the land which the natives look upon as individually theirs, and on the death of the father it descends to the sons. On the death of a mother, her property descends to her brother.
This is strong evidence in favor of there being individual property in land amongst the Australians; but is it satisfactory? What rights, exclusive of those of other members of the tribe, were enjoyed by the proprietor? What, in short, were his advantages? This personal property would naturally suggest the existence in each tribe of chieftainship; but nothing of the kind is known in Australia. The council of old men rule the affairs of the tribe. The principal man or principal men cannot act without their advice and approval. If they did act without authority, they might incur punishment. How could the sons of a daughter inherit? The people are not endogamous. A girl, it is true, is betrothed at an early age to a man not of her own class or to a man of another tribe with whom intermarriage is lawful; but girls and women are exchanged, and are not seldom stolen by men of neighbouring tribes; and, moreover, an old man has usually not one wife but several; and how would the succession be settled?
It is not at all clear from the statements here quoted that there was anywhere, in the ordinary sense of the word, individual property in land. How, indeed, could it consist with the maintenance of tribal rights, the rules of hospitality, and the preservation of the common interests of the people?
The Rev. John Bulmer informs me that the fact that an Aboriginal is born in a certain locality constitutes a right to that part, and it would be considered a breach of privilege for any one to hunt over it without his permission. Should another black have been born in the same place, he, with the former, would have a joint right to the land. Otherwise, no native seems to have made a claim to any particular portion of the territory of his tribe. Mr. Bulmer says he has found this birthright common to the Murray tribes, and he suspects it is common to most of the tribes of Australia. In old times a fight would ensue if any one wilfully trespassed on the land thus acquired as a birthright.
This is intelligible, and seems to accord with other customs of the natives.
In any large area occupied by a tribe, where there was not much forest laud, and where kangaroos were not numerous, it is highly probable that the several families composing the tribe would withdraw from their companions for short periods, at certain seasons, and betake themselves to separate portions of
- ↑ An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales, 1804, p. 385.
