malignant jealousy; for while their conduct with respect to the taio, &c. exhibits an insensibility to every feeling essential to conjugal happiness, the least familiarity with the wife, unauthorized by the husband, even a word or a look, from a stranger, if the husband was suspicious, or attributes it to improper motives, was followed by instant and deadly revenge.

There is a man now residing in Huahine, whose face and shoulders are frightfully marked with deep scars, inflicted by blows with a carpenter's axe, on this account. A husband and a wife were once sitting together when another man joined the party, and sat down with them. He wore a taupoo or bonnet of platted cocoa-nut leaves; lifting his hand, and taking hold of it by the part that shaded his brows, he waved his hand towards the inland part of the district, in removing his bonnet from his head. The suspicious husband, observing the motion of his hand, considered it as an assignation, that the stranger was to meet his wife there; and without a word, I believe, being spoken by either party, he rose up, took down his spear, which was suspended from the inside of his dwelling, and ran the man through the body, accusing him at the same time of the crime of which he supposed him guilty. Several of the murders of the Europeans, that have been committed in the islands of the Pacific, have originated in this cause.

Theft was practised, but less frequently among themselves than towards their foreign visitors. They supposed it equally criminal, yet they do not in general appear to have attached any moral delinquency to the practice, but they imagined they were more likely to avoid detection when stealing from strangers, than when robbing their own countrymen. Stealing was always considered as a crime

among them, and every precaution was taken to guard against it. On this account, their large bales of valuable cloth, and most articles of property not in constant use, were kept suspended from the ridge-pole or rafters of their dwellings; their smaller rolls of cloth were often laid by their pillows; and their pigs were driven under their beds at night, to prevent their being stolen.

This nefarious practice, strange as it may appear, was supported by their false system of religion, and sanctioned by the patronage of the gods, especially by Hiro a son of Oro, who was called the god of thieves. The aid of this god was invoked by those who went on expeditions of plunder, and the priests probably received a portion of the spoils. Chiefs of considerable rank have sometimes been detected in the act of stealing, or have been known to employ their domestics to thieve, receiving the articles stolen, and afterwards sheltering the plunderers. This, however, has generally been practised on the property of foreigners.

Among themselves, if detected, the thief experienced no mercy, but was often murdered on the spot. If detected afterwards, he was sometimes dreadfully wounded or killed. Two very affecting instances of vengeance of this kind are recorded by the early Missionaries. I have also heard that they sometimes bound the thief hand and foot, and, putting him into an old rotten canoe, towed. him out to sea, and there left him adrift, to sink in the ocean, or become a prey to the sharks.

The haru raa, or seizing all the property of delinquents, was the most frequent retaliation, among the lower class, for this and other crimes. The servants of the chiefs, or injured party, went to the house of the offenders, and took by force whatever they found, carrying

away every article worth possessing, and destroying the rest. If the inhabitants of the house received previous intimation of their purpose, they generally removed or secreted their most valuable property, but seldom attempted to resist the seizure, even though every article of food and clothing, and the mats on which they slept, should be taken away.

This mode of retaliation for theft, or other injury, was so generally recognized as just, that, although the party thus plundered might be more powerful than those who plundered them, they would not attempt to prevent the seizure: had they done so, the population of the district would have assisted those, who, according to established custom, were thus punishing the aggressors. Such was the usual method resorted to for punishing the petty thefts committed among themselves. They were generally satisfied with seizing whatever they could find in the houses, yards, or gardens of the offenders; but when it was practised by order of the king or chiefs, the culprit was banished from his house or lands, and reduced to a state of complete destitution.

Great difficulty was often experienced in discovering the thief, or the property stolen; and, on these occasions, they frequently resorted to divination, and employed the sorcerer to discover the offender. The thief, when detected, generally received summary punishment. Mr. Bourne states, that in one of the Harvey Islands, a man found a little boy, about eight years of age, stealing food; the man instantly seized the juvenile delinquent, and, tying a heavy stone to his leg, threw him into the sea. The boy sunk to the bottom, and would soon have paid for his crime with his life, had not one of the native teachers, who saw him thrown into the water,

plunged after him, rescued him, and taken him to his own house, where he has ever since resided.

The resources of the government consisted in the personal services of the people, and the produce of the soil. From these the revenue was derived. All public works, such as the erection of national temples, fortifications, enclosures from the sea, dwellings for the king, &c. were performed by the whole of the population. In each district, the king had a viceroy, or deputy, to whom his orders were sent with a cocoa-nut leaf. The chiefs sometimes assembled together, and divided the work among themselves. At other times, the king appointed each to his particular share. Every chief then issued his orders to the raatiras under his authority, who prepared the materials, and performed their appointed portion of the work. Canoes for the king's use were furnished in the same way, and also cloth for himself and his household.

Every district brought provisions at stated intervals for the king's use, or for the maintenance of his numerous retinue. Besides what they regularly furnished, orders were often issued for extraordinary supplies, for the entertainment of a distinguished guest, or the celebration of a national festival. No regular system of taxation prevailed, but every kind of property was furnished by the chiefs and people in great abundance, not only for the king, but for the purpose of enriching those who were the objects of his favour.

However abundant the supplies might be which the king received, he was in general more necessitous than many of the chiefs. Applications for food, cloth, canoes, and every other valuable article which he received from the people, were so frequent and importunate, that more

than was barely sufficient for his own use seldom remained long in his possession. A present of food was usually accompanied with several hundred yards of native cloth, and a number of fine large double canoes; yet every article was often distributed among the chiefs and favourites on the very day it arrived; and so urgent were the applicants, that they did not wait till the articles were brought, but often extorted from the king a promise that he would give them the first bale of cloth, or double canoe, he might receive. At times they went beyond this; and when a chief, who considered the king under obligations to him, knew that the inhabitants of a district were preparing a present for their sovereign, which would include any articles he wished to possess, he would go to the king, and tapao, mark or bespeak it, even before it was finished. A promise given under these circumstances was usually regarded as binding, though it often involved the king in the greatest difficulties, and kept him necessitous.

In the estimation of the people, one of the greatest virtues and highest excellencies of a king, was generosity; and one of the most unpopular dispositions he could cherish, was illiberality. In describing a good chief, or governor, they always spoke of him as one who distributed among his chiefs whatever he received, and never refused any thing for which they asked.

Notwithstanding this generosity on the part of the king, the conduct of the government was often most rapacious and unjust. The stated and regular supplies furnished by the inhabitants, were often inadequate to the maintenance of the numbers, who, attaching themselves to the king's household, passed their time in idleness, and were fed at his table. Whenever there was