illustrations with suitable anecdotes, and encouraging in the people the most unembarrassed confidence ; requesting them to present all their difficulties, and solicit explanations or directions.

This meeting has always been highly interesting, and has generally indicated the progressive improvement of the people. The subjects discussed are perhaps less miscellaneous than they were some years ago, when the people were totally uninformed in all the first principles of Christianity; and the nature of these meetings in some of the stations has, perhaps, undergone a slight change. They are, however, productive of important benefit.

Subjects of every kind were formerly discussed, and questions brought forward relative to the discipline of children, the forming of connexions, and the whole of their domestic economy, agriculture, trade, or barter, legislature, war and politics, history and science, as connected with the natural phenomena by which they were surrounded; and occasionally what might be termed the first efforts of philosophical research, in their partially enlightened minds.

When the political questions referred to their foreign relations, or their intercourse with other islands, we sometimes allowed them to be entertained; but whenever they were connected with any civil proceedings, or the internal government of the island, although the person who introduced it was not interrupted during his speech, the matter was always referred to the king and chiefs, for whose consideration he was directed to present it at a convenient season, unless the chiefs, who were generally present, wished it to be then discussed.

One of the most curious and interesting topics of

conversation, frequently introduced by the more thinking or inquisitive among them, was, the seat of the affections, and the locality of intellect. Their ideas and ours were totally at variance on this point; and, from the very nature of the subject, it was impossible to demonstrate the accuracy of one or the other. No part in the system of Drs. Gall and Spurzheim ever obtained among them; and so far from being phrenologists, they did not imagine the brain to be even the seat of thought. The frequent eulogy pronounced by us on an oration or action, in which intellect and right feeling are developed, viz. "that it is creditable alike to the head and the heart" of the speaker or actor, would have been altogether unintelligible to them. only exception to the prevailing opinion, which deprives the head or brain of all connexion with the exercise of the mind, is the term for headach, which is tahoa, and is also used to signify confusion of noise, and perplexity from attention to a multitude of objects at the same time.

The

The phraseology employed in speaking of the seat of the intellect and the affections, presents another analogy between the idiom of their language, and that of the ancient Hebrews. When speaking of mental or moral exercises, they invariably employ terms for which the English word "bowels" is perhaps the best translation : hence they say, te manao o te obu, or i roto i te obu; the thought of the bowels, or within the bowels; te hinaaro o te aau, the desire of the bowels; te riri o te aau, the anger of the bowels. Although bowels is, perhaps, the best single word for obu or aau, in the signification of which we have not been able to discover any difference, it does not convey the full meaning of the

word aau. In some places it might be rendered heart according to our idiom, as in the thoughts of the heart or mind-the desire of the mind, or soul-or, the anger of the soul. For soul and spirit, however, they have distinct terms, varua, and the ancient word vaiti; but it does not appear that they were accustomed to consider the soul or spirit as experiencing, in conjunction with the body, either mental or moral sensations. All the varied passions, and the mental exercises of which they were sensible, they spoke of as connected with the aau or obu, a term literally signifying the whole of the abdominal viscera-for each separate organ in which, they have a distinct name.

To the head they attributed nothing in connexion with intellect, nor to the heart with regard to moral feeling. To the organ which in the language of anatomy would be called the heart, they attributed no other susceptibilities than those which are common to other parts of the body. This led them generally to contend that the thoughts were in the body, and not in the brain; stating, in proof of the accuracy of their opinion, that the bowels or stomach were affected or agitated by desire, fear, joy, sorrow, surprise, and all strong affections or exercises of the mind. They were, probably, confirmed in this definition by the fact of such being the belief of their ancestors.

In reply, we usually informed them, that we were accustomed to speak of the heart as the seat of the affections and moral principles, though by the heart we often meant nearly the same as they intended by the word aau or obu, but that we considered our sensations and mental perceptions to be connected with the brain. It was in vain that we endeavoured

to shew the reasonableness of this opinion, by pointing out and explaining the connexion between the nerves pervading the several organs of sense, and the brain-the cessation and interruption of mental sensation and exercise, when the nerves of the brain were permanently injured-or when the line of nerves extending from an organ to the brain was broken. They usually answered, they would believe it because we said so, but that they did not understand it: indeed it was not to be expected that they should, as their knowledge of the anatomy of the human frame was exceedingly limited. They had no idea even of the existence of nerves, and it was necessary to introduce into their language a word by which they might be designated. Discussions of this nature, though adapted to interest the people, and encourage the exercise of intellect, were probably more amusing than profitable; and notwithstanding the diversified subjects presented, their inquiries generally referred to the new order of things which Christianity had introduced.

In reference to this, while they were sometimes trivial, and perhaps ludicrous, they were often deeply interesting and highly important, and not unfrequently difficult and perplexing. I have written many of them down at the time; others have been recorded by my companions: a selection will convey a more correct idea of their mode of thinking and expression, than any general description.

Many of their questions referred to the exercise of prayer, for punctual attendance to which they have been uniformly distinguished. Prayer for Divine direction accompanied their earliest inquiries on the subject of religion; and when in any district even two or three

were desirous of becoming the disciples of Jesus Christ, they were accustomed to associate together for this purpose. Private prayer has long been almost universal, as well as the practice of imploring a blessing on their food; and although they at first asked whether they must not learn to pray in the English language? whether God would not be angry if they should use incorrect expressions in prayer? or whether, when they had retired to their gardens, or the bushes adjacent to their dwellings, and were there engaged in prayer, their attention should be diverted by an intruder, they should leave off or continue? Sometimes they would ask, whether engaging in conversation, and praying, with very wicked persons, such as had been murderers, &c. would not appear in some degree sanctioning or extenuating their crimes? With more frequency, however, and greater eagerness, they often inquired how they could prevent evil thoughts arising in their minds during seasons of devotion-how they could avoid repeating words of prayer unattended by devotional desires-and how they could at all times engage the heart in this exercise? I recollect a father and a mother asking with ardent solicitude, whether it would be right to take their little boy or girl, or the garden, talk with it in it there to pray to God. was regularly observed; and among the many inquiries in reference to this subject, it was once asked, whether Jesus Christ had family prayer with his disciples, whether among their own domestic establishments, in the event of the sickness or absence of the husband, the wife should not convene the family, and perform this important duty?

with them to the bushes this retirement, and teach Prayer in their families