I have before me the double object of making a speech which ́ shall convince, and a book that shall be read. And when CHARLES JAMES Fox, one of the most eloquent of statesmen, and of men, heard a speech praised, he used to ask those who heard it, "Was it fit to print?" "Will it read well?" And if answered in the affirmative, he would reply, “ then, depend upon it, it was not an effective speech." I hope, therefore, if my next speech seems dull, you will charitably attribute it to the fact, that I have a book to make.

Ignatius, the eminent Christian father, who died a martyr, at Rome, in the year of our Lord, 107—only seven years after the death of the Apostle John, whose disciple he was, while on his way to suffer martyrdom at Rome, wrote letters to the Christian churches; also a letter to Polycarp, of Smyrna, exhorting and instructing him how to manage matters and carry himself in his church. There is in this letter the following passage, which shows that the slaves of heathen masters, who joined the churches planted by Paul in Asia Minor, wished to have the church money applied to buy their freedom. This is the passage:

"Despise not slaves of either sex; yet let them not be puffed up, but serve more faithfully to the glory of God, that they may obtain a better liberty from God. Let them not desire to be set at liberty at the charge of the church, lest they be found slaves of lust."-Miln. Cent. II,

This desire of the Christian slaves to have their brethren in the church apply the church funds to buying them of their heathen masters, shows clearly that those brethren were not slave-holders; nor those Apostolic churches slaveholding churches. So far from this, the slaves were asking to have the church funds applied to buy them, which could not have happened in slave-holding churches: the idea of a church composed of slave-holders, non-slave-holders, and slaves, all working to pay one part of the members for ceasing to enslave another part, being absurd on the face of it. [Time expired.

[MR. RICE'S SIXTH SPEECH.]

Gentlemen Moderators, and Fellow-Citizens:

I must really be permitted to say that my worthy friend, who is opposed to me in this debate, exceeds all the men I ever heard for the mis-statement of facts. I do not charge him, by any means, with doing this intentionally; but the mis-statements are oftentimes so very glaring, that they are, to me, perfectly unaccountable. For example: By way of apology for introducing the subject of the cruelty sometimes. practiced in connection with slavery, he says that I myself first introduced that subject in the course of the present debate, no less than three times. Now, what was the fact? Those who heard him, must remember that, in the very first sentence of his first speech, (the opening speech of this debate,) he adverted to the passing of a slave gang near this city, and then dilated, at considerable length, on the cruelty of slavery. He knows that my remarks were made in reply to him: and yet he now says, that I first introduced the subject! If the gentleman is so very forgetful, how can we rely on his statements?

He charges me with inconsistency, because I had said, I would debate only the question before us, and immediately proceeded to reply to his speech. The truth is, I proceeded to prove, that he had not debated the question, and that, in the course of his argument, he had contradicted himself, and refuted his own statements. I am not discussing, nor will I discuss, the system of American slavery; nor have I alluded to it, save to expose his inconsistency, and his contradictory statements.

His argument, during the last half hour, amounts to just this: In Kentucky, the slave does not enjoy that degree of protection which ought to be extended to him; therefore, the relation of master and slave is, in itself, a sinful relation!Q. E. D. Because the laws regulating slavery in Kentucky do not adequately protect the slave; therefore, all who hold

Accord

slaves there, or anywhere, are scandalous sinners! ing to the gentleman, every individual slave-holder is chargeable with all the defects of the laws of the State in which he happens to live! How would he like to be held personally responsible for all the defects in the laws of Ohio? Would he like such a rule, if applied to himself? I fancy not.And yet he would hold every slave-holder in Kentucky responsible for the acts of the Kentucky Legislature. Who ever heard before of a man's being held responsible for all the laws of his State? This I understand to be his argument: certainly, then, it is not to the point; it bears not on the subject before us.

of a man in Hindostan.

But the gentleman says, it is wrong to hold a slave, because the master holds that slave in a position where the laws do not, in fact, protect his rights. Now, in reply, I say that his argument proves too much: and he knows it is an established rule of logic, that an argument which proves too much, proves nothing. Apply his argument to the case The laws of India do not extend to wives that measure of protection to which they are entitled. The husband, in entering the marriage relation, places the woman in a position where the laws do not adequately protect her: therefore, the relation of husband and wife, in Hindostan, is, in itself, a sinful relation; and every man who has a wife, is a gross and scandalous sinner! The ancient Roman laws gave no protection to a child, but allowed the father to treat him most cruelly; therefore, it was gross sin for any one living in the Roman empire to be a parent! So, because the laws of France do not protect all the religious rights of the citizen, as we hold they ought to be protected, therefore it is sin to have a family in France! His argument, in plain English, amounts to this: It is a sin to place a human being in a position where the civil law does not protect him in all his civil and religious rights; therefore, except under a government absolutely perfect, it is a sin for a Christian man to have a wife or a child! Such an argument sweeps all before it. It would destroy all the relations

of human society. But if he will use arguments such as these, I suppose I must follow him, and expose them. He tells us, however, that he is coming to the question in his next speech. Well, I have not heard him say anything since the commencement of the debate, which afforded me so much pleasure. [Laughter.]

What I did say about the legal protection of slaves in Kentucky, was this: that the slave had, in Kentucky, the same protection from cruel treatment by his master, which the child has from the cruelty of his father. In reply, he does not deny that the law provides for the protection of the slave from cruelty, but seems to think the law will not be executed—that no one will bring the case of a suffering slave before the proper tribunal. A child may suffer much from a cruel father, before he can secure the protection of the law; and so may a slave suffer from a cruel master. But, I believe, there is no county in Kentucky, where an oppressed slave, cruelly and abusively treated by his master, will not find some one to espouse his cause, and protect him in his rights.

From the speeches of the gentleman, the audience, unless otherwise informed, would suppose the question under debate, to be this" are all the laws of Kentucky, in relation to slavery, just what they should be?" I have never said, they are. The Legislature might enact a law empowering every master to kill his slave at pleasure: and if they should, what then? Would it follow, that every man is a vile sinner who, holding a slave, does not kill him, but, on the contrary, treats him with all kindness? If the law gave the father power to kill his son, would that prove every man a cruel wretch, who is a father, but who, despising the cruel law, treats his child with all the affection of a father?

Moreover the laws quoted by the gentleman, were passed in 1798; whereas, the law to which I have referred, was enacted in 1830. The laws concerning slavery, have greatly improved since '98.

Having thus answered this one argument, I am about

through with the gentleman's speech. To answer nothing, is one of the most difficult tasks I ever undertook; and in what the gentleman has been saying, there is, really, nothing to answer.

I must, however, notice a statement he made in relation to the Rev. J. C. Stiles, of Richmond, Va. He referred to a report or statement he had somewhere heard or seen, that Mr. Stiles had, on his way to the General Assembly, (New School,) sold eight slaves, and so disposed of them as to separate those bound to each other in the family relation: and that such was the state of moral feeling in that Assembly that he was not disgraced by this, in their estimation, but was actually appointed to administer the Lord's supper to that body.

Now, there is a gentleman here present, who is an Elder in Mr. Stiles' former church, who has acted as one of the attorneys of Mr. Stiles, in the settlement of his pecuniary business, and who assures me, there is not one word of truth in the assertion: so far from it, Mr. Stiles gave $700 (a most enormous price,) for a negro man, not worth half that sum, because he was the husband of a colored nurse in his family, and he wished to prevent the separation of husband and wife. See the misrepresentation! Instead of separating family relations by selling, he paid double price in purchasing, expressly to prevent it. This was like a christian: this was conduct worthy of a man, a christian, a christian minister, a friend of God and of his species. He paid his money freely to promote the happiness of his servants. No wonder that he was not disgraced by it. See, I pray you, how the gentleman's facts turn out; yet he says that he is careful to state nothing that is not true.

I shall try to avoid such an example: what I state here, I will prové, if called upon to do so. I will not gather up reports and anonymous statements out of newspapers, to wound the character and destroy the usefulness of ministers of Jesus Christ.

But the gentleman is at last, going to make a point: he is