some twenty-five slaves, who, if sold, would have brought an average of $500 each, when Joshua Leavitt was editing the N. Y. Evangelist; that he was provoked with the paper, on account of the editor's denouncing slavery as a sin, but continued to take it on his wife's account, "until,” said Leftwick, "I should be ashamed to tell you what harrowings of conscience, and what horrid images followed me, even in my sleep, till I resolved to free every slave I had. From that hour, I have slept as sweet as a child, and if I had had ten thousand slaves, I would have emancipated them every morning since; though," he added, "I know, and my friends will tell you, that I love money full as well as my neighbors."

Facts of this kind—and there are thousands, are their own argument. They are the voice of nature in the first born elements of man proclaiming war against the grinding tyranny of personal slavery, with God and conscience on their side. You may cloud the solemn truth that holding slaves is a sin with prejudice, or darken it by reproach; or dazzle and confound it with the ecclesiastical subtleties of trained polemicism, and wire-drawn argument; yet, there it stands, bold, honest, open, and uncompromising; and its voice will be heard, and obeyed, when the flimsy and carping objections which may be heaped upon it are perished, passed away forgot.

In resuming, as I now do, the direct argument to prove that slave-holding is sin, I wish to observe that one of my friend's propositions, to wit: that the minds of men apprehend and admit general principles in morals, is generally, though by no means universally true. Even at the present day, when truth is eclipsed and overborne by the practical corruptions of society, it is yet true, with exceptions, that the soul constructed upon the model of God's law, will bear witness to those moral principles which are the elements and substance of that law. The exceptions are those minds which are biassed by corruption or interest; those who cannot see right principles through a guinea. It is by reason of this principle that slave-holders themselves testify that emancipation is a blessing

and slavery a curse. gument the following:

And I present, as my next direct ar

That holding innocent men in slavery is a sin, is proved by the action of those slave State legislatures and grateful masters, who have emancipated slaves for meritorious services.

Every such emancipation (and these have been many) is proof that the legislature and the individual emancipator, know that slavery is an evil, and liberty a good.

Does it require argument to show that they know also that inflicting an evil upon unoffending persons, and withholding good which is their right is sin? This is precisely what slave-holders are doing to their slaves-and their slave-holding is therefore sin.

They make liberty a reward for the most meritorious services, and slavery the punishment for certain kinds of crime; what then is the moral character of depriving a man of that which is in itself a reward, and inflicting upon him what is in itself a curse? If I hang an innocent man, I am myself a murderer; if I deprive an innocent man of his goods, I am a robber. What am I, if I deprive him of his liberty a possession brighter than gold, and dearer than life? A slave-holder! I know it is said that, though liberty is of priceless value to them who have enjoyed and can appreciate it, it is less important to those who have always been slaves and know no other state. But it is slaves who are freed for meritorious services. Liberty is thus solemnly declared to be the highest boon which can be bestowed on slaves. He then who holds slaves in slavery, holds them in deprivation of what slave State legislatures have declared a blessing and a good to them;-and he holds them thus bereft, without pretence of crime on their part. Slave-holders, therefore, by granting freedom as a reward, admit that every slaveholder is punishing the innocent—and punishing the innocent is sin.

But, they say: "We did not deprive the slaves of liberty but we found them so."

spiring with vexation, the slave-holder asked his honor "what evidence would be sufficient?" "Nothing," said Judge Harrington, "nothing short of a bill of sale from the Almighty will enable you to take that man from this Court as your property?" The man-holder was obliged to relinquish all hope of his victim. He had not power, personally, and unaided by the laws, to re-enslave his fugitive.

Thus, gentlemen, while men are in a state of nature, anterior to society, slavery cannot exist, and does not. Among the hundred Islanders, no one can enslave ten by his individual force. He must ally force with fraud, and bring cunning to the aid of cruelty. He must first mould and concentrate the individual force of the whole hundred into a government, and, by dexterous management, wield that for the enslavement of his ten. This is precisely what he does; and thus, under the name of government, a and the sacred forms of law, he achieves an object which, had he attempted it by his own single strength, would have cost him his life, as a despicable and impotent tyrant, and pirate upon the persons and peace of other men. This is "going with a multitude to do evil." And this is slave-holding.

The slave-holder does not rest his claim to his fellow-man upon his own prowess or force; but feels about for some system of slave-legislation, which he may take advantage of to compel his slaves to bear his burdens-thus wielding the power of the whole hundred to enslave his ten. What then is holding slaves by law, but "going with a multitude to do evil?" Is not this precisely the case of the American slaveholder at this day?

But my brother tells you, over and again, that the question is not whether kidnapping and enslaving men is right; he therefore contends that such illustrations as that of one man using the power of an hundred to enslave ten, are not relevant. The question, he says, is whether holding these kidnapped persons and their descendants in slavery is sin; or, in his own words; whether, holding persons in slavery, who are already enslaved, be sinful? That is true enough;

and that is the ery mestion I un scussing 3 I m showing uso hat Anencan save-ding-ang fee infants from our hands ma jacing hem in savery is adnanging and Ravery Da

But he viole matter vially bend avi. suppose hose Island stizens ui fie. uter en hat become saves o me that I am the son of that slave-holder. int i make that act 1 pretext o haid in slavery he dren of nose ten persons whom my father enslaved! And that I ake their infant ufspring as fast as horn and reckon mi erster them among my cattle and swine, as my property. Where then would be the least moral difference between my case and that of the present American slave-nouters? Can any one fail to see that, if I am the roboer and plunderer of ny species, he is no less!

The whole United States power is but the hand-vice into which the slave-acider screws his slave, and by which he slave is held to service or labor," and the United States statute, a tether to bind the hands and feet of those whom the rapacity and vicience of our ancestors have enslaved and piaced in our power. Slave-tciding, is therefore explicitly brbidden by God in the words: Thou shalt not flow a multitude to do evil”

[Time expired.

[MR. RICE'S EIGHTH SPEECH.]

Gentlemen Moderators, and Fellow-Citizens:

In closing the discussion of this day, I confess that I have been disappointed, and so, I presume, have the audience. They were informed by the gentleman, that they would hear the Bible argument in favor of his views this evening: You have heard what sort of a Bible argument it has been.

[Mr. BLANCHARD, interposing.-I said I would come to the direct argument.].

Then the direct argument in favor of abolitionism is not a Bible argument, the gentleman himself being judge. [Great laughter.]