around him, said, 'No doubt this was a good law, but a thought has been growing in my heart for several days, and when you have heard my little speech, you will understand what it is. The laws of England, from which country we have received so much good of every kind, must not they be good? Now, my thought is, that as England does so, it may be well for us to do so. That is my

thought.'

Perfect silence followed; and it may be observed here, that during the whole eight days' meeting of this parliament, there was not an angry word spoken by one against another, nor did any assume more knowledge than the rest. None controverted the opinion of a preceding speaker, or even remarked upon it without some respectful commendation of what appeared praiseworthy in it, while, for reasons which he modestly but manfully assigned, he deemed another sentiment better.

After looking round to see if one was up before him, Utami, the principal chief of Buanaauia, rose, and thus addressed the president: 'The chief of Papecto has said well, that we have received a great many good things from the kind Christian people of England. Indeed, what have we not received from Beretane? (Britain.) Did they not send us (Azea) the Gospel? But does not Hitoti's speech go too far? If we take the laws of England for our guide, then must we not punish with death those who break into a house?-those who write a wrong name?-those who steal a sheep?—and will any man in Tahiti say that death should grow for these? No, no, this goes too far. So I think we should stop. The law, as it is written, I think, is good; perhaps I am wrong, but that is my thought.'

After a moment or two of stillness, Upuparu, a noble, intelligent and stately chief, stood forth. It was a pleasure to look upon his animated countenance and frank demeanor, without the smallest affectation either of superiority or condescension. He paid several graceful compliments to the former speakers, while, according to his thought, in some things each was right, and each was wrong. My brother Hitoti, who proposed that we should punish murder by death because England does so, was wrong, as has been shown by Utami. For they are not the laws of England which are to guide us, though they are good; the Bible is our perfect guide. Now, Mitti Fruter (the missionary Crook) was

6

preaching to us on (naming the day) from the Scripture, "He that sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," and he told us this was the reason of the law of England. My thought, therefore, is not with Utami, but with Hitoti, (though not because of the law of England, but because the Bible orders it,) that we ought to punish with death every one found guilty of murder.' There was a lively exchange of looks all through the assembly, as if each had been struck with the sentiments of the speaker, especially when he placed the ground of the punishment of death, not upon English precedent, but upon Scripture authority. Another chief followed, and, 'rising, seemed a pillar of state,' one whose aspect, and presence, and costume (richly native) made the spectators forget even him who had just sat down. His name was Tati; and on him all eyes were immediately and intensely fixed, while, with not less simplicity and deference to others than those who had preceded him, he spoke thus: Perhaps some of you may be surprised that I, who am the first chief here, and next to the royal family, should have held my peace so long. I wished to hear what my brethren would say, that I might gather what thoughts had grown in their breasts on this great question. I am glad I waited, because some thoughts are now growing in my breast which I did not bring with me. The chiefs who have spoken before me have spoken well. But is not the speech of Upuparu like that of his brother Hitoti, in this way? If we cannot follow the laws of England, in all things, as Hitoti's thoughts would perhaps lead us, because they go too far,-must we not stop short of Upuparu, because his thoughts go too far, likewise? The Bible, he says, is our perfect guide. It is. But what does that Scripture mean? "He that sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood to shed." Does not this go so far that we cannot follow it to the end, any more than we can follow the laws of England all the way? I am Tati; I am a judge; a man is convicted before me; he has shed blood; I order him to be put to death; I shed his blood; then who shall shed mine? Here, because I cannot go so far, I must stop. This cannot be the meaning of these words. But, perhaps, since many of the laws of the Old Testament were thrown down by the Lord Jesus Christ, and only some kept standing upright,-perhaps, I say, this is one of those which were thrown down. However, as 1 am ignorant,

some one else will show me that, in the New Testament, our Savior or his apostles have said the same thing concerning him that sheddeth man's blood, as is said in the Old Testament. Show me this in the New Testament, and then it must be our guide.'

Much cordial approbation was evident at the conclusion of Tati's speech, and its evangelical appeal seemed to remove some difficulty and doubt respecting the true scriptural authority applicable to the

case.

Next rose Pati, a chief and judge of Eimeo, formerly a high priest of Oro, and the first who, at the hazard of his life, abjured idolatry. My breast,' he exclaimed, 'is full of thought and surprise and delight. When I look round at this fare bure ra, (house of God,) in which we are assembled, and consider who we are who take sweet counsel together here, it is to me all mea huu e, (a thing of amusement,) and mea aa foaou te aau, a thing that makes glad my heart.

'Tati has settled the question: for is it not the gospel that is our guide? I know many passages which forbid, but I know not one which commands, to kill. But then another thought is growing in my breast, and if you will hearken to my little speech, you shall know what it is. Laws to punish those that commit crime are good for us. But tell me why do Christians punish? Is it because we are angry, and have pleasure in giving pain? Is it because we love revenge, as we did when we were heathens? None of these: Christians do not love revenge; Christians must not be angry; they cannot have pleasure in causing pain-Christians do not, therefore, punish for these. Is it not that, by the suffering which is inflicted, we may prevent the criminal from repeating his crime, and frighten others from doing as he has done, to deserve the like? Well, then, does not everybody know it would be a greater punishment to banish forever from Tahiti, to a desolate island, than just in a moment to be put to death? and could the banished man commit murder again there? and would not others be more frightened by such a sentence than by one to take away his life? So my thought is that Tati is right, and the law had best remain as it is written.'

One of the taata rii, or little men, a commoner, a representative of a district, now presented himself, and was listened to with as

much attention as had been given to the lordly personages who preceded him. He said, 'As no one else stands up I will make my little speech, because several pleasant thoughts have been growing in my breast, and I wish you to hear them. Perhaps everything necessary has been said by the chiefs; yet, as we are not met to adopt this law or that law, because one great man or another recommends it, but, as we, the taata rii, just the same as chiefs, are to throw our thoughts together, that out of the whole heap the meeting may make those to stand upright which are best, whencesoever they come-this is my thought. All that Pati said was good; but he did not mention that one reason for punishing, (as a missionary told us, when he was reading the law to us, in private,) is to make the offender good again, if possible. Now if we kill a murderer, how can we make him better? But if he be sent to a desolate island, where he is all solitary, and compelled to think for himself, it may please God to make the bad things in his heart to die, and good things to grow there. But if we kill him, where will his soul go?'

ESSAY III.

MOSAIC CODE.

Popular appeals to the Mosaic Code-Imperfect system-Wrong views-Its divisions-The Avenger-Cities of refuge-Visit to the cell of Leavitt, the murderer-Number of capital offences-Sacredness of life-Error in civilized codes-Statute of Massachusetts-Jewish code abolished-Moses referred to a higher prophet— Sixth commandment-Reasons for Jewish code-Voice of GodObjections.

'All other things, which depend upon the eternal and immutable laws and rights of nature, remaining inviolately the same under both covenants, and as unchanged as nature itself.' SOUTH.

THE advocates of Capital Punishment have invariably appealed to the code of Moses. It has been to them a 'city of refuge.' It is worthy of remark that the opposers of every moral improvement have gone at once to the types and shadows of the old dispensation. The advocates for Slavery, the supporters of War, and the opposers of Temperance, have all sought rest amid its shadows and darkness; and whoever has even suggested that its essential features have passed away, has been deemed an innovator or a skeptic. This is unfair. We profess as high a veneration for this portion of the sacred volume as the strongest advocate of that form of punishment which it is the object of the present labor to prove to be contrary to humanity. That ancient code was designed for a particular age, and a peculiar condition of society. When the advo