Solomons

Bride Money In The

What S.S.E. Mission Has Done

Letter to the Editor attention has been drawn to a re '*■ * port in the April issue of a lecture given by Dr. lan Hogbin before the An thropological Society of N.S.W. on the

subject of “Bride Money.”

It is a pity that Dr. Hogbin has seen fit to make certain charges against the practice of the South Sea Evangelical Mission without first finding out from that Mission the facts in regard to the subject in question. Such would have been only fair. When Dr. Hogbin was staying at Malu’u investigating the Toamba’ita customs he had ample oppor tunity for getting accurate information on mission policy from us.

According to your report, Dr. Hogbin states that the Mission in question has suppressed the native “bride-price” on Malaita. This is entirely contrary to fact.

First, he does not seem to recognise the fact that marriage customs on Mala ita vary very much indeed, according to the particular district, and Dr. Hogbin has only investigated the customs of one of the many districts, namely Toamba’ita.

And, as to this district, he is entirely mistaken in what the Mission in question has done.

With regard to the “bride-price” the facts are these: When the South Sea

Evangelical Mission started operations on Malaita about 1903, they found an already existing mission community at Malu’u, amongst other places. These mis sion communities were the outcome of mission work done in Queensland. But, at Malu'u, the mission community had on their own initiative done away with the “bride-price,” under the idea that mission people ought not to “sell” their daughters. A large marriage feast, how ever, was made, in addition to the church service.

This particular native mission com munity were very strong in their view of no “bride-price,” and vigorously re sisted any idea of bringing it back; so much so that the late Mr. W. R. Bell, the then District Officer' on Malaita, recog nised their wishes in the matter as a working “native custom” for the Toam ba’ita mission folk, and so also did the Mission, Any later suggestion of reverting to a “bride-price” was always resisted.

In all other districts on Malaita the varying marriage customs were observed by the Mission for the locality in ques tion, except that in some districts where the “bride-price” was excessive the mis sion people were prevailed upon to re duce it to reasonable proportions.

Some years ago, however, there arose an acute division of opinion in the Toamba’ita district on the matter of the “bride-price”, a small but influential minority wanting to revert to a fairly large “bride-price.” After much difficulty

the Mission succeeded in getting all par ties to agree to a moderate fixed “bride price”, and peace has ensued. So, con trary to what Dr. Hogbin has asserted, the Mission, far from “suppressing” the

“bride-price,” has actually succeeded in restoring it.

Secondly, Dr. Hogbin’s statement, in your report, that the marriages of mis sion natives, married by native clergy according to Christian rites, were not recognised by the civil authorities, and so they were “living in sin,” is totally contrary to fact. On the contrary, in all “Christian marriages in the mission, the native marriage custom of the locality has always been also observed, and so the marriages have always been recog nised by the civil authorities. I know of no case to the contrary. There is the closest collaboration between the civil

authorities and the Mission in the matter of marriage and divorce, on the island of Malaita.

It is only fair to add that Dr. Hogbin has since written to me saying that your article is not a fair report of what he said. But the article remains and needs an answer.

I am, etc.,

Norman C. Deck.

S.S. Evangelical Mission,

Tulagi, 20/6/1936.

EDITORIAL NOTE: The article referred to by Mr. Deck was supplied to us by an official of the Anthropological Society of N.S.W. who attended the lecture.